PROGRESS
PUBLISHERS
MOSCOW
[1]Translated from the Russian by David Skvirsky
Designed by V. Yeremin
PA3BHTHE PEBOJHOUHOHHOH TEOPHH KOMMVHHCTHHECKOH HAPTHEH COBETCKOrO COIO3A Ha amviHftcKOM H3biKe __COPYRIGHT__ First printing 1971While working on the grandiose undertaking of building socialism and communism in the USSR, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union has always regarded the development of Marxist-Leninist science as one of its principal tasks.
Its own experience and the Soviet people's monumental achievements during the half-century since the Great October Socialist Revolution, states the CC CPSU decision ``On Measures to Promote the Social Sciences and Enhance Their Role in the Building of Communism" (1967), demonstrate the dynamic power of revolutionary theory and show that the CPSU has been and remains unshakably true to MarxismLeninism and continues, as it has always done, to wage a determined struggle against its enemies. Its guideline has always been Lenin's tenet that the ``role of foremost fighter can only be fulfilled by a Party guided by foremost theory''.
In its theoretical and practical work the CPSU steadfastly abides by the Leninist principle of combining the successiveness of past revolutionary experience with a creative approach to the solution of new problems. It has always been concerned with elaborating theory, with developing'the teaching of Marxism-Leninism. On the basis of its own vast practical experience, the Party has enlarged on and enriched the Marxist teaching on the socialist revolution, the dictatorship 5 of the proletariat and socialist construction; it has worked out the theoretical problems underlying industrialisation, collectivisation of agriculture, the cultural revolution, the promotion of Soviet democracy, socialist nations and the multi-national Soviet state; it has brought to light the basic laws and motive forces of the development of socialist society, and defined the cardinal tasks and conditions of the gradual evolution of socialism into communism; it has made a colossal contribution towards establishing the principles of proletarian internationalism.
Along with other Marxist-Leninist Parties, the CPSU has contributed towards defining the character of the contemporary epoch, the motive forces and the prospects of the world revolutionary process, and towards substantiating the ways and means of the transition of different countries and peoples to socialism under present-day conditions. The CPSU took a most active part in the work of all international meetings of fraternal Communist and Workers' Parties and in drawing up key documents reflecting the interests of each Communist Party and of the international communist movement as a whole.
This volume is an attempt to sum up the contribution that has been made by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union towards developing revolutionary theory on a number of major problems after Lenin's death.
The articles in this volume trace the Party's development of three components of Marxism: philosophy, political economy and scientific communism. With Lenin's methodological assessments and Party documents as their guideline, the authors analyse the principal trends of the development of modern imperialism, show how much the CPSU has contributed towards enriching the Leninist theory of socialist revolution, deal with questions of the economic theory of socialism and the further development of Lenin's teaching on the Party as the most potent political weapon of the working class in the struggle for socialism and communism, 6 show the constructive role played by the socialist state, and examine the principles underlying the scientific leadership of social development. In addition, the articles in this volume deal with the problems of the strategy and tactics of the international communist, working-class and national liberation movements, the development of the world revolutionary process, and the historic mission of the working class, which is at the core of the modern epoch and is called upon by history to effect mankind's transition from capitalism to socialism.
As a result of the Soviet people's dedicated work and of the Communist Party's theoretical and practical activities, mankind today has a socialist society and a time-tested science of the building of socialism. The Communist and Workers' Parties of all countries draw upon the CPSU's experience not only in the struggle to overthrow the old system but in the great work of building the new society--- socialism and communism.
[7] ~ [8] __ALPHA_LVL1__ LENINISMP. N. Pospelov
__NOTE__ Author(s) is (are) above LVL in original.No event in world history has so powerfully and profoundly influenced the subsequent course of history and the world revolutionary process as the Great October Socialist Revolution.
The dedicated work of the people, led by the Leninist Party and inspired by the immortal ideals of Lenin and the October Revolution, in building socialism and communism has changed not only the Soviet Union but the international situation as a whole and the alignment of class forces on a global scale.
In the CC CPSU decision On the Preparations for the Centenary of the Birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin the international significance of Leninism is treated from a scientific standpoint: ``With Leninism are linked the most outstanding revolutionary achievements of the 20th century---the Great October Socialist Revolution, which started a new epoch in human history, the formation of the world socialist system, the great liberation battles and the victories won by the working class and all working people over capitalism. Lenin's name has become the symbol of proletarian revolutions, of socialism and progress, of the communist transformation of the world."^^*^^
Creatively developed by the CPSU and other MarxistLeninist Parties under new historical conditions, the allconquering teaching of Marxism-Leninism has withstood all _-_-_
~^^*^^ On the Preparations for the Centenary of the Birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. Decision of the CC CPSU, Moscow, 1968, Russ. ed., p. 4.
9 tests. The renewal of the world touched off by the Great October Socialist Revolution has become an irreversible process. Extremely noteworthy are the high assessments that are being made by the fraternal Marxist-Leninist Parties of the significance of the October Revolution and the subsequent heroic struggle of the CPSU and the whole Soviet people.Descendants and direct heirs of the Paris Communards, the French Communists noted in a political resolution adopted by their 18th Congress that the Great October Socialist Revolution was the ``principal event of the latest period. It opened a new era in the history of man, the era of socialism and communism, of the liberation of people and whole nations. Socialism has ceased to be solely an ideal, a theory, a programme: it has become living reality, too. With the triumph of the October Revolution socialism has turned ... the Soviet Union into the most progressive country in the world as regards its socio-political system, the key branches of science and technology, the growth rates of the productive forces and its education and culture.
``Inspired by the light of the October Revolution and drawing lessons from its victory, the French working people set up their own Communist Party in 1920, and since then it has become the premier political force in our country.''^^*^^
The working people of all countries are advancing towards the world-wide victory of socialism and communism under the banner of Marxism-Leninism and the great ideals of the October Revolution.
Contrary to what the enemies of Soviet power say, it has been proved that all its achievements have not been an historical ``accident'' but are a great historic law prepared by the entire course of preceding development and made real thanks to the correct policy, strategy and tactics implemented by the Party of Lenin. The total and final victory of socialism in the USSR is an event of epoch-making significance. It has been proved, as Lenin perspicaciously anticipated, that mankind has now entered a new stage of development of extraordinarily brilliant prospects.
``All the experience of world socialism and of the workingclass and national liberation movements,'' states the Address ``Centenary of the Birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin" adopted by the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, _-_-_
~^^*^^ L'Humanite, January 12, 1967.
10 ``has confirmed the world significance of the Marxist-Leninist teaching. The victory of the socialist revolution in a group of countries, the emergence of the world socialist system, the gains of the working-class movement in capitalist countries, the appearance of peoples of former colonial and semicolonial countries in the arena of socio-political development as independent agents, and the unprecedented upsurge of the struggle against imperialism---all this is proof that Leninism is historically correct and expresses the fundamental needs of the modern age.''^^*^^ __b_b_b__Marxism-Leninism teaches that the transition from capitalism, which has become a brake on social development, to socialism as the first phase of communism must be accomplished through the socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin enlarged on the respective propositions of Marxism to demonstrate that in the epoch of imperialism the socialist revolution can triumph first in several or even one country. By virtue of various economic and political conditions, that country proved to be Russia. The Communist Party stirred the masses to action against tsarism and the exploiting classes and led them in the struggle for the overthrow of imperialism, setting classical examples of the ways and means of accomplishing the democratic and the socialist revolution.
The great feat accomplished by the working class and peasantry led by the Leninist Party has become an unfading model for all Communist and Workers' Parties, and for all the working people. Following the stirring historical example set by the CPSU and the Soviet people, the working people of more and more countries are consummating democratic and socialist revolutions. The peoples of all countries are beginning to see more and more clearly that capitalism brings incalculable calamities and suffering and threatens the world with new devastating wars, while socialism and communism are the road to freedom, peace and happiness.
``As a result of the dedicated labour of the Soviet people and the theoretical and practical activities of the _-_-_
~^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, Peace and Socialism Publishers, Prague, 1969, p. 41.
11 Communist Party of the Soviet Union,'' states the Programme of the CPSU adopted at the Twenty-Second CPSU Congress, ``there exists in the world a socialist society that is a reality and a science of socialist construction that has been tested in practice. The highroad to socialism has been paved. Many peoples are already marching along it, and it will be taken sooner or later by all peoples.''^^*^^ The Communist and Workers' Parties of all countries use not only the CPSU's experience of struggle for the overthrow of the old system but also its extensive creative experience of building the new society--- socialism and communism.Lenin pointed out that along with the task of consolidating and defending the new society against attack by the imperialist states and the internal counter-revolution, and the task of crushing the armed resistance of the exploiters, the task of building the new, socialist state and organising the economy in line with the objective laws of the development of socialist society moves to the forefront as soon as the dictatorship of the proletariat is established.
It will be recalled that all the forces of the old world--- from world imperialism and the exploiting classes defeated by the revolution to the Mensheviks,^^**^^ Socialist-- Revolutionaries^^***^^ and bourgeois nationalists, who betrayed socialism--- took up arms against the October Revolution and the then young Soviet Republic.
Like the Russian Mensheviks, the leaders of the Second International, who proved to be apostates of Marxism, tried _-_-_
~^^*^^ The Road to Communism, Moscow, 1961, p. 463.
~^^**^^ Menshevism---an opportunist, anti-Marxist-Leninist trend in the Russian Social-Democratic movement. It took shape at the Second Congress of the RSDLP (1903) and was expounded by all the adversaries of the newspaper Iskra, which was headed by Lenin. At the elections to the Party s central organs during the Congress, the Leninists received the majority of the votes and were, therefore, called Bolsheviks, while the opportunists found themselves in the minority and were called Mensheviks.---Ed.
~^^***^^ Socialist-Revolutionaries---members of a petty-bourgeois party formed in Russia in 1902. Championing the rural and urban petty bourgeoisie and relying on the support of the kulaks, the SocialistRevolutionaries linked old Narodnik (Populist) dogmas with individual Marxist tenets, which they revised and distorted. They maintained that individual acts of terrorism were the basic tactical means of struggle and, thereby, inflicted enormous harm on the revolutionary movement in Russia. The Socialist-Revolutionary Party disintegrated and ceased to exist at the close of 1920.---Ed,
12 to provide scientific grounds for their stand by alleging that Russia had not reached the level of development of the productive forces and of cultural progress making it possible to accomplish the socialist revolution and build socialism.In an article entitled ``Our Revolution" Lenin ridiculed these pedantic arguments of the ``heroes'' of the Second International, arguments that had absolutely nothing to do with revolutionary dialectics. He pointed out that the October Revolution had created such decisive requisites of civilisation as the expulsion of landowners and capitalists and, on that basis, the possibility for the workers' and peasants' power and the Soviet system to set out to overtake other peoples. ``Our opponents,'' Lenin wrote, ``told us repeatedly that we were rash in undertaking to implant socialism in an insufficiently cultured country. But they were misled by our having started from the opposite end to that prescribed by theory (the theory of pedants of all kinds), because in our country the political and social revolution preceded the cultural revolution, that very cultural revolution which nevertheless now confronts us.''^^*^^
The Mensheviks maintained that Bolshevism and Soviet power were ``anomalies'', a casual phenomenon in the world socialist movement. They held that historically Bolshevism was doomed to failure, for they could not conceive of socialism being triumphant in a backward country like Russia, where the overwhelming majority of the population was illiterate.
These Menshevik arguments were employed also by the Trotskyites and Zinovievites,^^**^^ who were still in the Party at the time. The Trotskyites argued that a genuine upsurge of socialist economy and the victory of socialism in the USSR would be possible only after the proletarian revolution _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, pp. 474--75.
~^^**^^ Trotskyism, a trend hostile to Marxism-Leninism in the workingclass movement. It was called after L. D. Trotsky (1879--1940). The Trotskyites were opposed to Leninism as soon as Bolshevism emerged as an ideological trend. They rejected the dictatorship of the proletariat and held that socialism could not be built in the USSR. On that basis they formed an anti-Party opposition bloc. The Trotskyite opposition found no support whatever in the working-class movement. In 1929 Trotsky was exiled.
Zinovievites---supporters of G. Y. Zinoviev, one of the leaders of the Trotsky-Zinoviev anti-Party bloc, which was formed in 1926. In 1932 Zinoviev was expelled from the Party for factional activities.---Ed.
13 triumphed in the West and only with the direct state support of the victorious proletariat of the West European countries. The Party denounced Trotskyism as a petty-bourgeois, Social-Democratic deviation and smashed it politically. If the Party had not defeated Trotskyism as an ideological trend, it would have been impossible to mobilise spiritually the working class and the Soviet people as a whole for the building of socialist society. But Leninist theory triumphed. It was a triumph of Lenin's prevision that socialism could be built in Russia. The Trotskyites, like the Mensheviks, ultimately slid into the camp of the counter-revolution.``Trotskyism,'' it is stated in the Theses of the CC CPSU on the 50th Anniversary of the October Revolution,\thinspace``sowed distrust for the working class of the USSR, maintaining that socialism could not be built in our country without the victory of the proletarian revolution in the West, and its ideological and political rout was of great importance. The Trotskyites sought to deprive our Party and people of their faith that socialism could be successfully built in the USSR, saying that it was of no importance to the world revolutionary movement. Using the screen of `Left' ultra-revolutionary phraseology they tried to impose an adventurist policy of artificially `pushing' the revolution in other countries and dooming the building of socialism to failure in our country. They demanded the adoption of anti-democratic, militarised methods of leadership of the masses within the country, rejected the Leninist principle of democratic centralism, insisted on `freedom' for factional struggles in the Party and, on this road, slid into anti-Sovietism.''^^*^^
The political struggle against Trotskyism was of the utmost international importance as well. William Z. Foster, prominent leader of the United States and international working-class and communist movement, wrote that in the struggle against Trotskyism ``not only was the fate of the Revolution in Russia at stake, but also that of the world communist movement''.^^**^^
In effect, the Trotskyites and ``Left Communists" accorded the October Revolution a secondary, auxiliary role in the _-_-_
~^^*^^ 50th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, Moscow, 1967, p. 12.
~^^**^^ William Z. Foster, History of the Three Internationals. The World Socialist and Communist Movements from 1848 to the Present, New York, 1955, p. 349.
14 world revolutionary process, the role of ``pusher'' of the revolution in West European countries. From this stemmed the monstrous thesis, propounded by a section of the ``Left Communists" at the time the Brest Peace was signed, that it was possible to sacrifice Soviet power.During the most difficult initial months of the formation of the Soviet state, it was only the wise policy pursued by Lenin that allowed safeguarding the Soviet Republic as the basis and mainstay of the entire world revolutionary process. In his speeches and articles of this period, for example, ``The Chief Task of Our Day'', ``The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government" and ``Original Version of the Article `The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government'~'', Lenin showed the need for enhancing the young Soviet Republic's defence capability and strengthening and promoting its economy along socialist lines.
He regarded the building of socialism and communism as a great internationalist duty of the Communist Party and the working class. Even at a time when the country's material and technical basis of socialism was extremely weak, he pointed out with sublime prevision that after the socialist revolution the Soviet Republic's main influence on the world revolutionary process would be exerted through economic achievements, that on an international scale the struggle would shift to that sphere.
Lenin's theory on the possibility of building socialism in the USSR is based on a profound Marxist evaluation of the dictatorship of the proletariat not only as a weapon for the suppression of the exploiting classes within the country but as a creative force, on the Marxist postulate about the reaction of the political superstructure upon economic development, and on the calculation that the rate of economic advance could be accelerated and the technological and economic backwardness inherited from the past surmounted provided the Soviet power pursued a correct policy.
Exceedingly important propositions on the reaction of the political movement upon economic development, and on the role played by state power are to be found in Engels's well-known letter of October 27, 1890 to Conrad Schmidt.
``The reaction of the state power upon economic development,'' Engels wrote, ``can be of three kinds: it can run in the same direction, and then development is more rapid; it can oppose the line of development, in which case nowadays 15 state power in every great people will go to pieces in the long run; or it can cut off economic development from certain paths, and prescribe certain others.''^^*^^
Further, Engels speaks of the future role of the proletarian dictatorship as of the accelerator of economic development: ``...why do we fight for the political dictatorship of the proletariat if political power is economically impotent?''^^**^^
This prevision has been fully borne out in the struggle for socialism in the USSR and also in other socialist countries.
In May 1917, while the preparations for the October Revolution were being laid, Lenin said that the proletariat had to win political power ``in order to carry out the economic and political measures which are the sum and substance of the socialist revolution''.^^***^^
It would not be superfluous to remind people who depart from Marxism and love to argue about the injurious nature of etatism (i.e., state interference) of these meaningful remarks by Engels and Lenin.
The three years of intervention and the Civil War kindled by the interventionists were a stern test for the Soviet system, which sprang from the October Revolution. In the grim struggle against the crusade of 14 states inspired by Winston Churchill, in the struggle against all the Entente campaigns, and against US and Japanese imperialism, the Soviet people displayed miracles of revolutionary patriotism in defence of their socialist motherland and their right to build a new life in a new society.
Capitalism held its ground after the first round of revolutions that flared up under the impact of the October Revolution as a result of the aggravation of all the contradictions of capitalism. Capitalism held its ground chiefly because during the revolution,ary crises the Right Social-Democrats gave their backing to the imperialist, bourgeois-landowner governments, helping them to suppress the revolutionary movement of the proletariat and splitting its forces. United States imperialism was strangling the revolutionary movement in the European countries through an economic blockade.
Nonetheless, the October Revolution and the young Soviet Republic received massive moral and political support from _-_-_
~^^*^^ Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. II, Moscow, 1962, p. 493.
~^^**^^ Ibid., p. 496.
~^^***^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 460.
16 the world proletariat. The ideals of the October Revolution increasingly found their way into the minds of working people in the capitalist countries. The troops of the imperialist powers sent to strangle the young Soviet Republic refused tq_ fight, the Red Army. There were mutinies among them, one of the largest being the mutiny staged in April 1919 by sailors of the French naval squadron in the Black Sea.In capitalist countries workers refused to load weapons earmarked for use against the Soviet Republic. Huge protest demonstrations were held and ``Hands Off Russia" committees were set up. All this impeded the actions of the interventionists.
In his notes for the report on home and foreign policy to the Ninth All-Russia Congress of Soviets (December 1921) Lenin wrote:
``The incredible has happened: a socialist republic in capitalist encirclement.
``The road of the international revolution is longer and more tortuous, but it is a sure road, otherwise we should not have had what we have (a socialist republic in capitalist encirclement).''^^*^^
The imperialists failed to strangle the Soviet Republic by military force.
Lenin declared that ``we have won against everybody'', that our unity with the workers and working people of all countries had proved to be stronger than the unity of the capitalist countries among themselves.
He wrote that morally and politically we were stronger than anybody because world economic and political development, as a consequence of and after the war, was following the line foreseen by the Party: the contradictions between the imperialist states and their contradictions with the oppressed peoples were growing.
At the same time, Lenin repeatedly stressed that after the war and the intervention the Soviet Republic was for the time being weaker than anybody materially, militarily, technically and economically.
The imperialists were unable to destroy the world's first socialist state by armed force; but they laid waste to it by intervention and civil war, thereby preventing it from immediately taking such a step towards socialism as would _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 44, 5th Russ. ed., p. 484.
__PRINTERS_P_17_COMMENT__ 2---2635 17 have justified the forecasts of Marxist-Leninist teaching on the advantages of the socialist over the capitalist system in economic and cultural development.A few months later, in the notes for the political report of the CG RCP(B) to the Eleventh Party Congress (March 1922) Lenin wrote:
``The key feature: the gap between the epoch-making grandeur of the tasks set and started and the material and cultural poverty.''^^*^^
In another variant of the notes for this report he formulated more forcefully the principal, the main ``link in the chain" and the tasks confronting the Party and the country:
``1922: the gap (abyss) between the unbounded scale of the task and the material and cultural poverty.
``Fill in this abyss.''^^**^^
Lenin firmly believed and scientifically foresaw that this abyss between the greatness of the tasks and the temporary weakness of our Revolution's material, technical and economic basis would be eradicated.
No statesman or scientist appreciated and took into account the potentialities of the Soviet Republic, its natural wealth, the scope given by the great Revolution to the creative initiative of the people, and the talents and revolutionary staunchness of the working class so well as Lenin.
In his report to the Fourth Congress of the Comintern, ``Five Years of the Russian Revolution and the Prospects of the World Revolution'', Lenin could sum up some results of the first economic successes scored as a result of the New Economic Policy.^^***^^
The cardinal result was that the country had surmounted the terrible famine of 1921. The famine, Lenin pointed out, was caused by the Civil War and the intervention organised by the imperialists. But the imperialists and their myrmidons alleged that it was the result of the socialist economy, calculating that this would frighten the proletariat of the capitalist countries away from the revolution.
_-_-_~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 45, 5th Russ. ed., p. 414.
~^^**^^ Ibid., p. 411.
~^^***^^ New Economic Policy (NEP) was charted by Lenin for the period of transition from capitalism to socialism and aimed at building socialism by making use of the market and the money economy. It tolerated capitalism, stipulating that political power was to be in the hands of the proletarian state.---Ed.
18One of the key political gains of the New Economic Policy was that it strengthened the alliance of the working class with the peasants. An indication of the political mood of the peasants was that millions of tons of grain were received as tax in kind with hardly any compulsion.
Another major result mentioned by Lenin at the Fourth Congress of the Comintern was the beginning of a general upsurge of the light industry and, in connection with this, an improvement of the position of the workers in Petrograd and Moscow. Lastly, it was found possible to form the first fund amounting to somewhat over the modest sum of 20 million gold rubles for the restoration of the heavy industry, which was the hardest hit by the war.
Speaking of this, Lenin pointed out that ``unless we save heavy industry, unless we restore it, we shall not be able to build an industry at all; and without an industry we shall go under as an independent country''.^^*^^
The very first years of peaceful construction demonstrated that the socialist country had huge potentialities. Suffice it to say that by the time the Party held its Fourteenth Congress, known as the Congress of Industrialisation, the annual rate of growth of industrial output was 66 per cent.
Lenin revealed the fundamental laws governing the economic, socio-political and cultural development of socialist society. In the economy, the decisive and determining sphere of social life in the period of socialist construction, the laws in operation at the different stages of the building of socialism include the replacement of capitalist by public, socialist ownership of the basic means of production, the gradual reorganisation of agriculture along socialist lines, and the planned development of the national economy directed towards building socialism and communism and raising the standard of living. The laws governing socio-political development include: the development and consolidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat and its state form---the Soviets; the leading role of the Communist Party in the building of socialism; the alliance of the working class with the main mass of peasants and other strata of working people; the establishment of equality and fraternal friendship between peoples; the defence of the gains of socialism against encroachment by external and internal enemies; the solidarity of the working _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 426.
19 class of the given country with the working class of other countries, this being called proletarian internationalism. In cultural development the main laws are the consummation of the cultural revolution ensuring the abolition of illiteracy and semi-literacy, the creation of a people's intelligentsia devoted to the working class and all other working people, and to the cause of socialism; the critical assimilation and remoulding of the cultural achievements of the past; the creation of a culture socialist in content and national in form; the reshaping of the cultural make-up of the working people and the enhancement of their ideological level and political awareness. Access to culture helps the people in the building of socialism and communism.With the Marxist-Leninist teaching as its guide, the Communist Party charts its policy on a genuinely scientific foundation with due account of the laws of social development.
In ``The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution'', a programme work written in April 1917, Lenin pointed out:
``From capitalism mankind can pass directly only to socialism, i.e., to the social ownership of the means of production and the distribution of products according to the amount of work performed by each individual. Our Party looks farther ahead: socialism must inevitably evolve gradually into communism, upon the banner of which is inscribed the motto, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'.''^^*^^
Socialism and communism have features in common. Both the one and the other phase are characterised by social ownership of the.means of production, the absence of exploitation of man by man, and planned, proportionate development of all branches of the national economy. Both phases have the same aim of production, which is to secure the fullest satisfaction of society's growing material and cultural requirements through the steady growth of labour productivity and use of the latest machines and technologies, the all-round development of people and the growth and improvement of social production. Labour for the benefit of society is the cardinal duty of all able-bodied members of society at both stages. Under communism labour will have its own specific features deriving from the exceedingly high level of development of production, science, technology and culture, and _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, pp. 84--85.
20 the high level of political awareness. Labour will be the prime vital need of man. Both stages are characterised by the socio-political and ideological unity of the people, comradely co-operation, collectivism, mutual assistance, the absence of social antagonisms and of national and racial oppression, the Leninist principle of democratic centralism in economic management and social relations, fraternal friendship and cohesion of the peoples, and a single Marxist-Leninist ideology.The unity of the two phases---of socialism and communism ---does not rule out distinctions between them determined by the level of maturity reached by the social system, the level of economic, social and cultural development, and other inherent features. Socialism emerges as a result of the revolutionary break-up of the old way of life, of the old social formations; it replaces capitalism, or feudalism, in countries that, after the socialist revolution, start building socialism without having gone through the capitalist stage of development. Socialism thus emerges and develops not on soil of its own but on inherited soil bearing the birthmarks of the old system, birthmarks whose eradication requires a tremendous effort on the part of all members of society.
The Soviet people had to work with dedication to put an end to the relative economic backwardness inherited from the past and surmount the appalling, consequences of the threeyear war against the whole of the capitalist world. In the Soviet Union the building of socialism was started not from the level of 1913, when Russia's economy registered the highest indices of development of peaceful branches of industry, but from the level of 1921, when industry was dislocated by the intervention and the Civil War sparked by the interventionists to the extent that production dropped to 15 per cent of the pre-war level. This circumstance is always ``forgotten'' by the critics of socialism and the apologists of capitalism.
As distinct from socialism, communism grows on its own foundation, which is built by its first phase. The conditions are thereby created for a faster growth of the productive forces ensuring the attainment of the highest level of labour productivity, an abundance of material blessings, and the all-round development of the individual.
An extended characteristic of communism on the basis of Marxist-Leninist propositions is given in the Programme of the CPSU, which states: ``Communism is a classless social 21 system with one form of public ownership of the means of production and full social equality of all members of society: under it the all-round development of people will be accompanied by the growth of the productive forces through continuous progress in science and technology; all the springs of co-operative wealth will flow more abundantly, and the great principle 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' will be implemented. Communism is a highly organised society of free, socially conscious working people in which public self-government will be established, a society in which labour for the good of society will become the prime vital requirement of everyone, a necessity recognised by one and all, and the ability of each person will be employed to the greatest benefit of the people."^^*^^
The building of socialism and communism is a lawgoverned process. It makes no allowance for artificial pushing, the forestalling of developments, the premature abandonment of the principles of socialism when they have not yet been exhausted, and the hasty introduction of the principles of communism when the conditions have not ripened for them. As Marxism-Leninism teaches and as practice shows, the transition to communism cannot be effected directly from capitalism without first passing through the stage of socialism. This sort of artificial running ahead could have an enormously adverse effect on the building of socialism and communism and could disrupt the economic and political development of society and undermine the foundations and principles of socialism and communism. A striking example of this is the policy, pursued in China by Mao Tse-tung and his group, of artificially planting people's communes in agriculture at a time when they had not yet gone through the socialist stage. This practice has inflicted colossal damage on China's agriculture and disrupted the country's proportionate economic development.
Lenin insisted that the transition to communism could not be accomplished as a single act, that this transition had to pass through definite stages.
The plan of socialist construction drawn up by Lenin envisaged the building of the material and technical basis as the paramount task. To build this basis it was imperative to industrialise the country along socialist lines through the _-_-_
~^^*^^ The Road to Communism, p. 509,
22 use of modern machinery, collectivise agriculture and, in the process, abolish the last exploiting class---the kulaks. It was also important to carry out the cultural revolution. Lenin accorded electrification the premier role in the socialist reorganisation of industry, agriculture and the life of the people.Everybody knows Lenin's famous formula that `` communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country".^^*^^
A state plan of the electrification of Russia (known as the GOELRO plan), providing for the building of 30 large power stations in the course of 10--15 years, was drawn up on Lenin's initiative in 1920, at the dawn of Soviet power. The scientific character of this plan and its feasibility have been demonstrated by the fact that within 10 years, by 1935, its basic targets had been surpassed by 200 per cent.
It was particularly important to develop the heavy industry as a vehicle consolidating the alliance of the working class with the working peasantry---the highest principle of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The foundation of this alliance could only be a highly developed industry, first and foremost the production of the means of production, through which the peasantry could be organised in co-operatives resting on a modern material and technical basis, and the promotion of the light and food industries, this being an indispensable condition for steadily raising the people's standard of living.
A prominent role in developing industry and making the Soviet state economically independent of the capitalist countries was accorded by Lenin to science, the state monopoly of foreign trade, and Soviet finances.^^**^^
The opponents of Lenin's plan of socialist industrialisation argued that the basic branches of heavy industry could not conceivably be built quickly. ``It takes a dreamer,'' Trotsky maintained, ``to imagine that we can build all or most of our equipment within the next few years.''^^***^^ Trotsky sought to prove that the Soviet economy would be inevitably subordinated to world (capitalist) economy.
_-_-_~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 516.
~^^**^^ See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, pp. 36, 73--74, 89--94; Vol. 36, p. 532.
~^^***^^ Roads of the World Revolution. Seventh Extended Plenum of Comintern Executive, Verbatim report, Vol. II, Russ. ed., MoscowLeningrad, 1927, p. 101,
23The Right-wing opposition and some specialists were against accelerated rates of development in the heavy industry, arguing that all the machinery for the economy should be imported. The Party had to adopt a highly principled stand, enforce a high degree of organisation and display unshakable faith in the scientific character and feasibility of Lenin's plans. In a difficult internal and international situation, the CPSU, with the support of fraternal Communist Parties and the Comintern, upheld Lenin's plan of industrialisation and inspired the people to carry it out.
While industrialisation proceeded, the CPSU further developed Lenin's teaching, using the invaluable experience gained by the people in building socialism. Of particular importance in this respect was the Fourteenth Party Congress, which ushered in a new stage of socialist construction by steering a course towards socialist industrialisation, towards the practical implementation of Lenin's ideas about the development of the heavy industry.
This Congress defined the Soviet method of industrialisation, mapped out the sources of accumulation, charted the ways and means of correctly utilising public funds for building a modern (for those days) industry, and set the task of accelerating the training of cadres---workers and specialists--- to manage and improve production.
The Fifteenth Congress and Sixteenth Party Conference considered questions relating to the first five-year plan of economic development and indicated that it was necessary to eradicate disproportions in the national economy. The Fifteenth Congress adopted directives calling for an improvement of planned leadership and for effective capital investments, and pointed out what new industries had to be given priority.^^*^^ With Lenin's ideas as its guideline, the Sixteenth Party Conference adopted an historic appeal to the working people, calling on them to start a socialist emulation drive and showing the role of this campaign in the fulfilment of the first five-year plan.
While remaining immutable in its main aim, the policy of industrialisation was specified and developed in the new conditions by the Sixteenth Congress, the Seventeenth Party _-_-_
~^^*^^ See The CPSU in Resolutions and Decisions of Its Congresses, Conferences and Plenary Meetings of the Central Committee, Part II, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1954, pp. 453--58,
24 Conference, the joint plenary meeting of the CC and the Central Control Commission of the CPSU in January 1933, the plenary meeting of the CC CPSU in October 1932, and the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Party congresses. The Communist Party and the Soviet Government registered a social triumph during the first five or six years of industrialisation by abolishing unemployment.The first five-year plan was fulfilled at a time when the entire capitalist world was being shaken by an unprecedented economic crisis. The results of this plan were of paramount historical significance. A little over ten years after the end of the Civil War and intervention, surmounting economic dislocation, famine and the economic blockade, the Soviet Union proved beyond all doubt that the socialist economic system and the Soviet political system were far superior to capitalism, and showed what gigantic forces and potentialities were inherent in socialism. In the main, the country closed the gap between the grandeur of the epoch-making tasks confronting it and the weakness of the material and technical basis, a problem that had worried Lenin so much. ``Thus,'' the CC and the Central Control Commission noted at their plenary meeting in January 1933, ``the USSR has been transformed from an agrarian to an industrial country, and this has consolidated its economic independence, for the USSR is now in a position to manufacture at its own factories the bulk of the equipment needed by it."^^*^^
The fulfilment of the first five-year plan gave the lie to the specious theories of the Mensheviks, Trotskyites and Zinovievites that it was impossible to surmount the technical and economic backwardness of the Soviet Union, which had been devastated by the interventionists, and blasted their arguments that socialism could not be built in the USSR.
Under the impact of the results of the first five-year plan there appeared in 1935 a book that was interesting in many respects. It was written by Sidney and Beatrice Webb, who were prominent in the British working-class movement and had been regarded as leading ideologists of reformism and Fabianism. In the epilogue are the words:
_-_-_~^^*^^ The CPSU in Resolutions.... Part III, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1954, pp. 146--47.
25``At this point we hear an interested reader asking: 'Will it spread?' Will this new civilisation, with its abandonment of the incentive of profit-making, its extinction of unemployment, its planned production for community consumption, and the consequent liquidation of the landlord and the capitalist, spread to other countries? Our own reply is: 'Yes, it will.' But how, when, where, with what modifications, and whether through violent revolution or by peaceful penetration, or even by conscious imitation, are questions we cannot answer.''^^*^^
__NOTE__ Above is not formatted as a blockquote in original. Fix.It must be noted that in a final testament, the Webbs ``placed on record their recognition of the vindication of Marxist theory''.^^**^^
The new tasks of further developing Soviet industry were carried out by the Party during the years of the second and third five-year plans. The technical reconstruction of the entire national economy, the completion of collectivisation in agriculture, the enhancement of the people's standard of living and cultural level and the speeding up of the growth of the defence branches of industry dictated by the deterioration of the international situation were the principal directions in which the Party worked in those years.
The successes in modernising technology and raising the cultural level and political consciousness of the people manifested themselves vividly in the Stakhanov movement^^***^^ and in the growth of the movement for invention and rationalisation. The material and cultural level of the people mounted together with the growth of the socialist industry. The real wages of factory and office workers rose steadily. Thousands of new factories of the light and food industries were placed in operation. The modern plant for them was supplied by the heavy industry. With these new factories in operation the output of consumer goods was substantially increased. Housing construction was started.
The enemies of socialism and some none too clever `` critics'', who are engaged in looking for all sorts of ``snags'' in _-_-_
~^^*^^ Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Soviet Communism: A New Civilisation? Vol. II, London, 1935, p. 1143.
~^^**^^ R. Palme-Dutt, The International, p. 102.
~^^***^^ Named after A. G. Stakhanov, a miner, this was a mass drive for innovation and modern technological methods with the object of stepping up labour productivity at factories and collective farms. It was started in 1935.---Ed.
26 socialist construction, real and imaginary, argue that socialist industrialisation was carried out ``dogmatically'', with lopsided emphasis on the heavy industry, completely overlooking Group ``B'' (consumer goods).Actually, the initial plan for the second five-year period, endorsed by the Seventeenth Party Congress, envisaged much higher rates of growth for the production of the means of consumption than of the means of production. In 1937 the output of the means of consumption was to grow 268.8 per cent over the 1932 level, while production of the means of production was to increase only 209.4 per cent.^^*^^
But in view of the mounting threat of war, this initial plan, approved by the Congress, had to be reconsidered.
The steadily growing scale of the acts of aggression by imperialism, primarily by nazi Germany and militarist Japan, compelled the Party and the Government to channel considerable funds for the expansion of the output of armaments and for the building up of large state reserves of fuel, strategic raw materials and food. The defence industry expanded rapidly under the second and third five-year plans. In the course of the second five-year plan period industrial output increased 120 per cent, while the defence industry increased its output 286 per cent in 1933--1938.^^**^^ It registered an even faster rate of increase in 1939 and 1940.
As a result of the policy of industrialisation, the Soviet people led by the Communist Party turned the Soviet Union into a mighty economic, scientific, technological and military power.
``The country's industrialisation started with the first fiveyear plans,'' states the CPSU decision On the Preparations for the Centenary of the Birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, ``was a gigantic battle of the Soviet people for socialism. It created a solid foundation for the development of all branches of the national economy and for the rise of the standard of living. It ensured the country's defence capability and moved the USSR to the front rank of scientific and technological progress. The half-century experience of socialism has borne out that the Leninist policy of building a _-_-_
~^^*^^ Seventeenth Congress of the CPSU(B), Verbatim report, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1934, pp. 356. 358.
~^^**^^ Eighteenth Congress of the CPSU(B), Verbatim report, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1939, p. 435.
27 large-scale socialist industry had been correct.''^^*^^ The socialist industry created by the Soviet people under the leadership of the Communist Party played an immense role, in many ways predetermining victory in the Great Patriotic War.At the close of the pre-war period, Soviet industry occupied first place in the world for the rate of development and one of the first places for the volume of output, the technological level and supplies of mineral raw material.
While working on numerous problems of industrial development, the Communist Party gained vast experience of leading the masses, planning new projects and reconstructing existing branches of industry. It combined administration with economic incentives. It reared efficient Party cadres and economic leaders, and improved the forms and methods of Party work in industry and construction. The CPSU set an unparalleled example of theoretically and practically resolving the problems posed simultaneously by the necessity to surmount the country's age-old backwardness and industrialise and make it economically independent of the capitalist encirclement.
__*_*_*__While building up a socialist industry as the foundation for boosting the national economy as a whole, the CPSU accomplished history's greatest revolutionary change in the socio-economic relations of the peasantry and reorganised agriculture along socialist lines. On this unblazed trail the Party had to surmount the age-old traditions of the peasants and their attachment to their individual farms. It had to break the desperate resistance of the class enemy and of the anti-Leninist groups fighting collectivisation.
In agriculture collectivisation became necessary because the contradiction between socialist industry and the individual, privately owned husbandry resting on a petty-bourgeois foundation grew increasingly more pronounced as the building of socialism progressed. This contradiction could be removed and a homogeneous socialist economy created only by setting up large socialised farms.
_-_-_~^^*^^ On the Preparations for the Centenary of the Birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. Decision 'of the CC CPSU, Russ. ed,, Moscow, 1968, p. 11.
28The ways and means of turning the small peasant husbandries into large socialist economic units had been generally outlined by Marx and Engels: they visualised producers' cooperatives. This point of departure suggested by the founders of Marxism was comprehensively enlarged on and scientifically substantiated by Lenin in his co-operative plan, which constitutes a concrete programme of building socialism in the countryside with its mass of small peasant farms.
Lenin proved that with the change of the social system, the co-operative existing under the bourgeois system as a capitalist enterprise could not spontaneously evolve into a socialist co-operative. The socialist state had to help to effect this conversion. Lenin defined the fundamental principles for bringing the peasant farms into co-operatives: these were voluntary membership and a gradual transition from the lowest forms to the highest producers' co-operative.
The co-operative plan provided the scientific basis for the' socialist remaking of agriculture and drawing the peasants into the building of socialism. The Fifteenth Party Congress was the turning point in giving effect to this plan and setting the countryside on the road to socialism. ``In the current period the task of uniting and reorganising the small individual peasant farms into large collective farms,'' it was underlined at the Congress, ``must be set as the Party's principal task in the countryside.''^^*^^
By the beginning of 1930 the Party had ensured the creation of the material and political prerequisites for speeding up collectivisation. These prerequisites were prepared by industrialisation, the strengthening of the alliance of the working class with the working peasantry, the development of cooperatives in the preceding years and the determined struggle against the kulaks. The tide turned at the close of 1929 under the impact of these factors: the middle peasants began to join the collective farms. The Party went over to collectrvisation on a nation-wide scale and on that basis began the liquidation of the kulaks as a class.
Socialism advanced all along the line. ``The introduction in the Soviet countryside of large-scale socialist farming,'' it is stated in the Programme of the CPSU, ``meant a great revolution in economic relations, in the entire way of life of the peasantry. Collectivisation for ever delivered the _-_-_
~^^*^^ The CPSU in Resolutions..., Part II, Russ. ed., p. 475.
29 countryside from kulak bondage, from class differentiation, ruin' and poverty. The real solution of the eternal peasant question was provided by the Lenin co-operative plan.''^^*^^This great revolutionary transformation was accomplished on the initiative and under the leadership of the Communist Party and the Soviet Government with the direct and overwhelming support of the working class and the entire working peasantry. It marked the final triumph of socialism in the USSR. The socialist system of economy was consolidated as the only and undividedly predominant system not only in industry but also in agriculture.
In the course of collectivisation the Party enlarged upon Marxist theory and the Lenin co-operative plan. It determined the time for the transition to a policy of liquidating the kulaks as a class, showed that the collective farms were the basic vehicle for socialist construction in the countryside and found that machine-and-tractor stations were the best form of production assistance by the state to the collective farms.
The consolidation of the collective-farm system fundamentally changed the social composition of the countryside. As a class the kulaks were liquidated. By joining the collective farms the former poor peasants, farm labourers and middle peasants became equal economically and socially. They formed a new, socialist class---the collective-farm peasantry---linked with socialist ownership of the means of production.
The collectivisation of agriculture in the USSR opened and tested a road to socialism for the peasantry. The socialist reconstruction of agriculture is an objective law of the building of socialism. ``Lenin's co-operative plan,'' it is said in the Statement of the 1960 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in Moscow, ``has proved its great vitality both for Countries where the peasants' attachment to private land ownership was a long-standing tradition and for countries that have recently put an end to feudal relations.''^^**^^
The peoples of many countries are drawing on the CPSU's experience to effect the socialist reorganisation of agriculture. They are advancing along the road opened by the CPSU _-_-_
~^^*^^ The Road to Communism, p. 458.
~^^**^^ The Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, Moscow, 1963, p. 46.
30 and, having regard to the specifics of their own countries, adding much to the Soviet Union's experience. __*_*_*__The cultural revolution that followed on the heels of the Great October Revolution is part and parcel of Lenin's plan of socialist construction.
``After we had solved the problem of the greatest political revolution in history,'' he wrote, ``other problems confronted us, cultural problems....''^^*^^
Analysing the situation in Russia long before the October Revolution, he wrote: ``There is no other country so barbarous and in which the masses of the people are robbed to such an extent of education, light and knowledge---no other such country has remained in Europe; Russia is the exception.''^^**^^ That is why the question of culture was raised to the level of a fundamental political task of the Party and the Government virtually as soon as the dictatorship of the proletariat was established. Through the Soviets---the organs of the new people's power, through which all the working people are drawn into socialist construction---the Party was able to exert an active influence on the shaping of the world outlook of all Soviet people. This was in line with the Marxist understanding of the substance of the cultural revolution, whose objective was to bring to light the entire range of the people's creative possibilities and release man from the bonds holding up his all-round, harmonious development. Socialism creates all the requisites for the full development of the personality: absence of exploitation, free labour, the building up of the material basis for culture, the democratisation of political and social life, and so on.
The purpose of the cultural revolution thus merged with all the other tasks of socialist construction, the most important of which were the upbringing of the new man and the fullest satisfaction of his material and cultural requirements.
``The old Utopian socialists,'' Lenin wrote, ``imagined that socialism could be built by men of a new type, that first they would train good, pure and splendidly educated people, and these would build socialism.
_-_-_~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 73.
~^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 19, p. 139.
31``We want to build socialism with the aid of those men and women who grew up under capitalism, were depraved and corrupted by capitalism, but steeled for the struggle by capitalism.''^^*^^
In spite of the bourgeois and Menshevik ``theories'' that the working people, whose level of culture and education under capitalism was low, were unable to seize and hold power, Lenin theoretically substantiated the historically distinctive features of cultural development under conditions of the transition from capitalism to socialism. He proved that as a result of the socialist revolution and on the basis of the workers' and peasants' power, the working class and all other working people could quickly master the entire wealth of human culture.
There was an immediate warm response from all sections of the working people to the steps taken by the Communist Party and the Soviet Government to promote cultural development. This conformity of the interests of the people with the work of the Communist Party and the Soviet Government is an inexhaustible source of growth of socialist culture and of the cultural development of the Soviet people. Lenin wrote: ``There is a mighty urge for light and knowledge 'down below', that is to say, among the mass of working people whom capitalism had been hypocritically cheating out of an education and depriving of it by open violence. We can be proud that we are promoting and fostering this urge.''^^**^^
In order to promote the large-scale building of socialism there had to be knowledge---general educational and special ---the people had to master the scientific Marxist world outlook. That was why Lenin always insisted that in order to build socialist society the political revolution had to be supplemented with a cultural revolution, with a revolution in the minds of the people. He noted with satisfaction: ``Nine out of ten of the working people have realised that knowledge is a weapon in their struggle for emancipation, that their failures are due to lack of education, and that now it is up to them really to give everyone access to education.''^^***^^
In ``Our Revolution'', ``Pages From a Diary'', ``On Cooperation'', ``On Proletarian Culture'', ``The Tasks of the _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 29, p. 69.
~^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 32, p. 127.
~^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 28, p. 88.
32 Youth Leagues" and other articles Lenin charted the ways of building up a socialist culture, and they underlie the cultural development plans put into effect in the Soviet Union. The cultural revolution started from the very first days of the existence of the Soviet state proceeded apace during the years of socialist industrialisation and collectivisation.Tasks of the socialist cultural revolution in the USSR such as the ousting of bourgeois and feudal ideology from the sphere of culture, the critical processing of the most valuable cultural heritage of the past, the closing of the gap between the people and culture, the winning of the finest representatives of the bourgeois intelligentsia over to the side of the working class and the creation of a new intelligentsia from among the working class and the peasants were largely carried out in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism.
The cardinal achievement of the socialist cultural revolution was the renewal of the working people's spiritual world and a fundamental change in their way of thinking.
In the building up of a socialist culture the Party insisted that everything of value created through the millennia of mankind's development should be solicitously preserved and used to further the building of socialism.
The eradication of illiteracy was one of the immediate tasks of the cultural revolution. More than two-thirds of the population could not read or write, while in the outlying Asian republics there was almost total illiteracy.
Lenin linked the abolition of illiteracy with the political education of the people, saying at the 2nd All-Russia Congress of Political Education Departments on October 17, 1921, that ``so long as there is such a thing as illiteracy in our country it is too much to talk about political education.. .. An illiterate person stands outside politics''.^^*^^
Results were quick to make themselves felt. In 1926 the number of literate people rose to 51 per cent of the population, and in 1939 to over 80 per cent.
The system of public education expanded along with the abolition of illiteracy. Lenin's dream of universal education for children materialised. Nearly 28 million children went to school in the 1936/37 school year.
The country's industrialisation, the creation of new _-_-_
~^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 78.
__PRINTERS_P_33_COMMENT__ 3---2635 33 conditions in agriculture and the reorganisation of the economy raised the demand for specialists for all the branches of the national economy. The Communist Party devoted much attention to the formation of a Soviet intelligentsia. The number of institutions of higher learning increased steadily. By 1936 there were 700 of these institutions with a student body of over half a million. Thanks to the correct policy pursued by the Communist Party, the Soviet higher school was able to bring up fine cadres of a new, people's intelligentsia, who displayed their ability at the projects of the first five-year plans. There were many Communists among the young Soviet intelligentsia.Lenin ascribed to science an exclusively important role in the building of socialism. Of fundamental importance as a guideline was Lenin's ``Draft Plan of Scientific and Technical Work''. This document unequivocally stated that scientists had to be enlisted into the work of reorganising the national economy and clearly implied that science itself had to be promoted by plan.
Lenin regarded the close alliance between scientists, technicians and workers as the guarantee of success in building the new society and as one of the key factors for raising labour productivity, which in the long run was the most important element making for the consolidation of the new social system.
Lenin made it plain that use should be made of the expertise and experience of the old intelligentsia and that it should be drawn into active participation in the country's life. He said that ``there must be a relentless struggle against the pseudo-radical but actually ignorant and conceited opinion that the working people are capable of overcoming capitalism and the bourgeois social system without learning from bourgeois specialists, without making use of their services and without undergoing the training of a lengthy period of work side by side with them''.^^*^^ What a wretched picture is cut by the Maoist leadership of the Communist Party of China who have abandoned the basic propositions of Marxism-Leninism. They regard their ``cultural revolution" as a crusade against all the great achievements of world culture, as the destruction of all the priceless treasures created by man. In effect the ``cultural revolution" is aimed _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 29, p. 113.
34 at smashing the Party, trade union and Komsomol organisations in China which are resisting the nationalistic and antiSoviet line steered by Mao Tse-tung. ``The Mao Tse-tung group took up a policy which combined petty-bourgeois adventurism with Great-Power chauvinism disguised by `Left' phraseology; it openly set out on a course intended to undermine the unity of the socialist community and to split the world communist movement.``The adventurist line of the Mao Tse-tung group seriously weakened the positions of the Communist Party and the Chinese working class and gave a free hand to petty-bourgeois and anarchist elements. It seriously threatens the socialist achievements of the Chinese people.''^^*^^
The Leninist approach adopted in the Soviet Union to socialist culture, the heritage of the past and the old intelligentsia allowed socialist culture to make rapid headway.
Lenin underscored the link of the new culture with the old, with its finest, progressive, dem6cratic traditions. He criticised the Proletkult (Proletarian Culture) exponents, who demanded the creation of a new, proletarian art, without taking the complexity of this process into account. In the famous speech on October 2, 1920 at the Third Congress of the All-Russia Young Communist League he said that proletarian culture ``is not clutched out of thin air; it is not an invention of those who call themselves experts in proletarian culture. That is all nonsense. Proletarian culture must be the logical development of the store of knowledge mankind has accumulated under the yoke of capitalist, landowner and bureaucratic society''.^^**^^
The press and book publishing were given every attention by the Communist Party. The new reader, hungry for knowledge, wanted newspapers, magazines and books. Newspaper circulation grew swiftly from 9,400,000 in 1928 to 36,200,000 in 1937, and the number of books published in the same period increased from 270,500,000 to 677,800,000. After the October Revolution literature was brought out in the languages of 61 peoples of Russia, of whom more than 40 had formerly had no written language of their own. In line with Lenin's teaching, the Party promoted all spheres of art. The theatre, painting, sculpture and music were made _-_-_
~^^*^^ 50th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, p. 54.
~^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 287.
35 accessible to the people, and all went through a period of revolutionary renewal.``In the Soviet Union,'' states the CC CPSU decision On the Preparations for the Centenary of the Birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, ``the cultural revolution has brought Soviet people education and enlightenment. It has led to the florescence of science, created a people's intelligentsia, consolidated socialist ideology in all spheres of society's cultural life, and preserved and multiplied the treasures of world culture. Inspired by the ideals of the socialist revolution, literature and art have become components of the general proletarian cause, of the nation-wide drive for the attainment of communism.''^^*^^
The socialist cultural revolution was instrumental in raising the literacy and cultural level of the people, in training cadres of the Soviet intelligentsia -and in drawing Soviet people into increasingly more active participation in socialist construction.
__*_*_*__As a result of the consistent fulfilment of Lenin's plan, the building of socialism was, in the main, completed in the Soviet Union by 1937. This achievement was legislatively recorded in the new Constitution of the USSR. It was a supreme triumph of the policy pursued by the Communist Party, and a triumph of the working class, the collectivefarm peasantry and all other working people. But this did not signify that the Lenin plan of building socialism had thereby been consummated. The Soviet Union had entered the period in which socialist construction was to be completed, but the war started by nazi Germany against the USSR cut short this peaceful work.
In dealing with the post-war period the Soviet press has not always clearly established the continuity with the processes that had taken place before the war. Sometimes, in connection with the criticism of the personality cult of Stalin, the colossal work accomplished by the Party and the Soviet people in building the material and technical basis of socialism, raising the standard of living and the people's cultural _-_-_
~^^*^^ On the Preparations for the Centenary of the Birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. Decision of the CC CPSU, Moscow, 1968, Russ. ed., p. 14.
36 level, and in strengthening the country's defence capability has been indiscriminately run down. Some authors, without analysing the real state of affairs, alleged that the Soviet Union failed to take steps to strengthen its defence capability. Yet it was the huge economic and military potential, the enhanced political consciousness and cultural level of the people, the Party's able use of the advantages of the socialist system and of the reserves and potentialities of the Soviet Union that made it possible to defeat nazi Germany. Bourgeois falsificators go to all lengths to belittle the role played by the Soviet Union in defeating nazi Germany. But these attempts are doomed to failure. The entire coursje and outcome of the war and countless facts and documents testify to the decisive role played by the Soviet Union in the epochmaking victory won over nazi Germany. After the victory over the most rabid enemy of mankind---German nazism--- the Soviet Union healed most of the war wounds during the period of the fourth five-year plan and confidently forged ahead to complete the building of a mature socialist,society.Some authors, it must.be pointed out, do not display a clear understanding of the gradual development of this process. They do not adequately take into account Lenin's teaching of the complete and final triumph of socialism, of the gradual dialectical process of transition from socialism to communism. This transition proceeds gradually, chiefly through the steady enlargement and consolidation of the material and technical basis of socialism, which forms the initial foundation for the material and technical basis of communism. Moreover, this gradualness is expressed in the increasing participation of the people in socialist production, in the steady development of relations of mutual assistance, comradely support and exchange of experience, in the gradual erasure of the essential distinctions in the cultural level and standard of living of the town and countryside and the distinction between mental and physical labour, in strengthening the fraternal friendship between all nations.
Transition to communism was started in the Soviet Union after the complete and final triumph of socialism had been secured. In the Theses of the CC CPSU headed ``50th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution'', it is stated: ``The formation of the world socialist system, and the growth of the Soviet Union's economic and defence might brought about a change in the world balance of forces in 37 favour of socialism. Socialism has won once and for all in the USSR, and our country is fully guaranteed against the restoration of capitalism.''^^*^^ In the theses it is pointed out that the complete and final triumph of socialism is the principal result of the revolutionary-transformative work of the Soviet people headed by the Communist Party. But the shoots of the new, communist society appeared much earlier, in effect, in the very first days after the establishment of Soviet power. The Communist subbotniks (labour given freely on holidays or after working hours) were one of these shoots.
Elements of communism became manifest also in the socialist emulation movement. An enormous place is occupied in the emulation movement by the conscious desire to hasten socialism and communism by one's own labour contribution. Soviet people are voluntarily taking an increasingly more active part in the work of the Soviets and in furthering economic and cultural development.
Having completed the building of socialism and creating a highly developed socialist society, the Soviet Union entered the period of full-scale communist construction. Lenin's teaching of the two stages of communist society is being applied more fully and consistently. He wrote: ``... as we begin socialist reforms we must have a clear conception of the goal towards which these reforms are in the final analysis directed, that is, the creation of a communist society___"^^**^^ Currently, the Soviet people are working towards this goal.
The problems linked with the transition to the building of communism on the basis of the specific conditions of the development of Soviet society at the present stage were deliberated by the Party at the Twentieth and Twenty-First congresses, at the Twenty-Second Congress, which adopted a new Programme, at the Twenty-Third Congress and at plenary meetings of the Central Committee. The Party firmly adheres to the Leninist, scientific approach in defining the tasks involved in the building of the new society, finding the main link of the political leadership of the masses. Lenin's precept on this point was: ``Political events are always very confused and complicated. They can be compared _-_-_
~^^*^^ 50th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution pp. 24--25.
~^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 127.
38 with a chain. To hold the whole chain^ you must grasp the main link. Not a link chosen at random.''^^*^^The Programme of the CPSU states that at the present stage of communist construction the main link is the unity of three prime tasks of the Party and the Soviet people: the building and enlargement of the material and technical basis of communism, the creation of new social relations and the upbringing of the new man of communist society.
Of these three, the leading and determining task is the building of the material and technical basis of communism, i.e., further economic development. Lenin said that ``we value communism only when it is based on economic facts''.^^**^^
But economic development is indivisibly linked with the shaping of communist relations and the upbringing of the new man. Neither of these tasks may be belittled or counterposed to the other, and the various forms of development may not be hastened, if the conditions have not ripened for them. Guided by Lenin's propositions, the Party teaches that success can only be achieved if these tasks are carried out scientifically and parallel with each other in accordance with the concrete situation, with the obtaining political and economic conditions. In the Programme of the CPSU it is pointed out that these tasks can only be carried out under the leadership of the CPSU, the devoted and tested vanguard of the working class and the whole Soviet people.
In line with Lenin's propositions about the building of socialism and communism, and the Party's growing role in the period of communist construction as the directing and leading force of society, and improving the forms and methods of its organisational and educational work, the CPSU has embarked on large-scale and manifold activity to carry out the programme of building communism in the Soviet Union.
The Party concentrates chiefly on building the material and technical basis of the new society. All the reserves and potentialities of socialist production are to be used to cover the country with a network of power stations, give every scope to the scientific and technological revolution and, on that basis, develop machinery, technologies and the organisation of production in all branches of the national economy, comprehensively automate and mechanise production _-_-_
~^^*^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 302.
~^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 29, p. 191.
39 processes, build a large chemical industry, promote the production of new forms of energy and new materials, make the fullest use of natural resources, and so on. In order to start the gradual transition to the communist principle of distribution according to needs there must be an abundance of products, the output of which must far outstrip the level reached by the most highly developed capitalist countries. But this target can only be achieved by mobilising all the creative forces of the people, the entire experience of socialist construction and all the means for the ideological education of the people. The Party has done much in this direction since the Twenty-Second Congress.After the CC plenary meeting in October 1964 the Party consistently ascertained and determined the priority tasks, acting in fulfilment of Lenin's teaching on the main link of political and economic leadership and in line with the Leninist principles of providing a scientific foundation for political and economic guidance. At its plenary meeting in March 1965 the CC CPSU scrutinised the cardinal problems of agricultural development in order to speed up the production of food for the population and raw materials for industry, and at another plenary meeting, in September 1965, it considered the question of higher efficiency in the management of industry, better planning and greater economic incentives in production.
The transfer of industrial enterprises to complete economic autonomy, as envisaged by the economic reform charted by the CC CPSU at its September 1965 plenary meeting, embodies the Leninist principles of socialist economic management applicable not only under socialism but also in the period of transition from socialism to communism. Economic factors such as profitableness, cost, price and income continue to play a major role in the work of enterprises as powerful levers for the further expansion of the Soviet economy.
The important economic measures taken by the Party are facilitating the successful fulfilmeut of the tasks that have been set the people in building the material and technical basis of communism. The data on the fulfilment of the seven-year plan convincingly show the steady advance in that direction. The national income used for accumulation and consumption grew 53 per cent, the volume of industrial output increased 84 per cent, while the basic funds of 40 the economy increased 92 per cent, i.e., they almost doubled. The Soviet Union's economic and defence potential at the commencement of the seven-year plan, a potential that took over 40 years (32 years if the period of wars is subtracted) to build, was thus doubled in only seven years. Such was the truly colossal contribution of the seven-year plan towards the building of the material and technical basis of communism.
Further progress was achieved in all fields of production during the years that followed. Speaking at the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, L. I. Brezhnev pointed out that in the eight-year period from 1960 to 1968 industrial output in the USSR increased more than twofold and agricultural output nearly one-third. The gap separating the USSR from the USA in the economic sphere has narrowed down. In 1960 gross industrial output in the Soviet Union reached 55 per cent of the level in the USA, while in 1968 it rose to nearly 70 per cent of that level. The international prestige enjoyed by the Soviet Union and the whole socialist community has risen in recent years and its influence over the destinies of mankind has been enhanced.
The growth of the Soviet Union's social wealth ensures the steady rise of the people's standard of living and cultural level. The real wages of factory and office workers and the incomes of the collective farmers are growing and their material and cultural requirements are being satisfied more and more fully. The Party and the Government are taking steps to increase the minimum wage for factory and office workers, and to raise the rate of tariff for lower- and medium-paid employees. In recent years the income tax has been abolished or reduced for a large section of factory and office workers, and collective farmers have been guaranteed a minimum money payment and pensions; minimum pensions have been increased, and more benefits have been established for invalids of the Great Patriotic War. In the period from 1960 to 1968 the real incomes of the people increased 43 per cent. The housing situation is steadily improving. The housing available in the towns increased from 958 million square metres of useful floor space at the close of 1960 to 1,410 million square metres at the close of 1968.
Much is being done to improve towns and workers' townships and build more health and holiday homes, hospitals and polyclinics. The upbringing of Soviet children receives unflagging attention. The number of children in pre-school 41 establishments totalled nine million in 1968. In the 1968/69 school year there were more than 77,000,000 pupils and students at the general-education and vocational secondary schools and at institutions of higher learning. In the Soviet Union tuition is free at all educational institutions. Soviet science has registered new achievements and the number of scientists has continued to grow rapidly. In 1969 the Soviet Union had one-fourth of the world's scientists.
The work of Soviet scientists and engineers in space exploration, the development of quantum electronics, the physics of solids, the creation of polymeric and semi-conductor materials, the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes and many other fields has won world-wide recognition. Fine new works have been created by Soviet writers, artists and composers.
The economy and culture are developing successfully in all the Union republics. The great vital force of the Leninist national policy is demonstrating to the whole world that socialism alone opens for the peoples the road to the swift surmounting of economic and cultural backwardness and their conversion into advanced socialist nations. Translated into reality in the process of socialist construction, Lenin's teaching of the cultural revolution is being further developed and enriched in the present period of the building of communism.
In working on the tasks set by the Party for the period of communist construction on a broad front, the Soviet people have thus secured major achievements in economic and cultural development and in raising the standard of living. There has been considerable progress in building the material and technical basis of communism.
Socialist social relations in all spheres have been improved parallel with the development of the country's productive forces and with the enlargement of the material and technical basis. In the sphere of the relations of production, the forms of socialist ownership, both state and co-operative, are undergoing further evolution. Important developments were the eradication of subjectivism and voluntarism in planning and in the management of production, the massive intervention of science, a realistic account of the actual possibilities of industrial enterprises and collective and state farms, and the unfolding of creative initiative by the people. Scientific and technological progress in industry required a 42 further enhancement of the skill, initiative and efficiency of workers at all levels. New features have emerged in the attitude to labour. Along with personal incentive, collective incentives are steadily coming to the fore.
In the countryside, collective- and state-farm production plays the determining role in the development of social relations. In recent years there has been a trend towards reorganising many collective farms into state farms. The progress that has been made in collective-farm production, particularly after the plenary meeting of the CC CPSU in March 1965, has convincingly demonstrated the vitality of both the collective- and state-farm forms of organisation. The further development of collective-farm production and the extension of production ties between them allow for a more rational utilisation of natural, material, technical and labour resources and help to improve socialist relations of production in the countryside.
Important changes are taking place in the socio-political sphere. By ensuring the triumph of socialism in the USSR, the dictatorship of the proletariat fulfilled its historic mission. The function of suppressing the resistance of the exploiting classes disappeared with the liquidation of these classes, and the main functions of the socialist state---- economic, organisational, cultural and educational---have become predominant. With the triumph of socialism, the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat becomes the political organisation of the entire people. The people's state is the further development of the socialist state and through it is achieved the transition to communist self-administration. The people's state does not rule out the leading role of the working class. On the contrary, the working class continues to preserve its leading role also in the period of communist construction. This is natural because to this day the working class plays the chief role in production, by virtue of its involvement in industry, mainly in heavy industry, which retains its importance as the foundation for the development of the national economy as a whole and as the key factor in the building of the material and technical basis of communism. The working class remains the most advanced force of Soviet society on account of its rich revolutionary and labour traditions and vast organisational experience. Comprising more than half the country's working population, it is the most highly conscious and organised class.
43Vital importance attaches today to the comprehensive development and improvement of socialist democracy, calling for the increasingly more active participation of citizens in the administration of the state, in the guidance of state and cultural development, and in the measures to enhance the efficiency of the state apparatus and intensify public control of its work. At the same time, it would be wrong to forestall developments, prematurely replace socialist statehood with forms of communist self-administration or prematurely turn basic functions of the socialist state in internal and foreign policy over to public bodies. The task is to continue consolidating the socialist state and strengthening discipline, order and legality, and to improve and further develop socialist statehood and democracy.
The task of the public is to help the socialist state more and more actively to carry out its principal educational and organisational functions. It should also be borne in mind that in view of the existence of capitalist states and their growing aggressiveness, the socialist state bears an increasing responsibility for the defence of the USSR and of the socialist community as a whole and for the fulfilment of internationalist tasks relative to all countries fighting exploitation and working towards freedom, independence and socialism.
During the period of transition to communism an enhanced role is played by the Soviets, which are the all-embracing organisation of the people and embody their unity. The salient features of the Soviets of Working People's Deputies as organs of state power and as the largest public organisations combine organically in their work. In the process of the further development of socialist democracy the organs of state power will gradually evolve into organs of public self-administration. But this process will take place not as a result of a simple transfer of the functions of the Soviets as organs of state power to public self-administration, but as a result of the further development of the Leninist principle of democratic centralism, the correct combination of centralised leadership with the maximum promotion of the work of local organs of state power, the improvement of the forms of the people's government and the enhancement of the creative activity of the people. It is important that more millions of people should go through the school of state administration by taking part in the work of the Soviets. 44 Practice shows that Soviet people regard their voluntary participation in the work of the Soviets as one of their major duties. Several million people participate in this work; they help to strengthen state discipline and order, improve the organisation of public education, social maintenance, public health, trade and public catering, better the services and the work of cultural establishments and ensure the strict observance of socialist legality. This gives striking expression to the principle of socialist democracy.
The organs of public control are becoming steadily more active. During the early years of Soviet power Lenin said that the organs of public control had to function permanently as effective vehicles for drawing the people into the administration of affairs of state. In the period of gradual transition to communism these organs acquire increasingly more important functions. They help to check on the fulfilment of decisions by the Party and the Government, facilitate the growth of the socialist economy, further cultural progress, make sure that state discipline and socialist legality are observed and actively support new, advanced developments in the life of society.
New patriotic undertakings and new communist forms of labour are instituted on the initiative of many thousands of workers in socialist production. Emulation movements for high indices in communist labour at industrial enterprises and collective and state farms are started on a nation-wide scale. Designing and technological bureaus, economic analysis groups, technical rate-setting bureaus, councils of innovators and other voluntary services are being set up.
The trade unions play a growing role in communist construction. They help to fulfil state plans, introduce technical improvements in production and promote emulation movements and invention and rationalisation on a mass scale. They popularise the finest examples of a communist attitude to work and manifestations of communist social relations.
The Komsomol is prominent in furthering educational and organisational work among young people. Young volunteers work with dedication to build giant power stations, factories, railways and new towns, develop virgin land, explore outer space and help the Party to educate young people in the communist spirit.
All forms of co-operatives---collective farms, consumers', house-building and others---are playing an increasingly 45 larger role in communist construction and in the communist education of the masses.
The upbringing of the new man of communist society acquires immense importance in the period of transition to communism. The new man is moulded in the process of active participation in communist construction. Moreover, he is formed under the influence of the entire system of educational work by the Party, the Government and public organisations. The Party sets the task of giving all Soviet people a scientific world outlook on the basis of MarxismLeninism, a generalisation of new phenomena in the life of Soviet society, the experience of the world revolutionary and working-class movement, and the creative combination of the theory and practice of building communism. In educational work the Party attaches the utmost importance to the promotion of a communist attitude to labour creating the material and technical basis of communism.
As the building of communism progresses, increasing importance is acquired in the life of society by moral principles founded on the moral code of communist construction. The Party educates the people on the glorious revolutionary and labour traditions of the working class, on the example of the life and work of outstanding leaders of the CPSU and the international communist and working-class movement. The Party aims at the all-round development of the individual, who would harmoniously combine spiritual wealth, moral purity and physical perfection. The struggle against manifestations of bourgeois ideology and morals, survivals of private-ownership psychology, superstitions and prejudices, and the propagation of the great advantages of socialism and communism over the outworn capitalist system are components of the drive for communist education.
Another major step towards the attainment of the great aim of building communism in the USSR was the five-year plan for 1966--1970, the directives for which were adopted by the Twenty-Third Congress of the CPSU. This plan, which envisages a 40 per cent increase of the gross product, a growth of more than 50 per cent of the basic assets of production and a 38--41 per cent increase of the national income, will contribute greatly towards creating the material and technical basis of communism, raising the people's standard of living and cultural level and strengthening the country's defence capability. As in all the preceding years, the 46 leading role in developing production is played by heavy industry and electrification. At the same time, the gap between the growth rates of production of the means of production (Group ``A'') and of consumer goods (Group ``B'') is closing. The principal objective of socialist production is to secure the fullest and all-sided satisfaction of the people's requirements. With the growth of the material and technical basis of communism the output of consumer goods will be stepped up in order gradually to create the possibility for switching from the socialist to the communist principle of distribution. In the decisions of the Twenty-Third Party Congress and of plenary meetings of the CC CPSU the task of further developing the economy is organically combined with the promotion of new social relations, the upbringing of the new man of communist society and the intensification of ideological work. ``The main thing now,'' L. I. Brezhnev, General Secretary of the CC CPSU, said in his report to the Twenty-Third Congress, ``is to raise the standard of all the sectors of the Party's ideological work still higher. We must remember Lenin's tenet that communist education is inconceivable outside the sphere of conscious labour and social activity. All ideological work must be closely associated with life, with the practice of communist construction.''^^*^^ To carry out the tasks set by the Twenty-Third Congress the role of the social sciences has to be enhanced to the utmost in communist construction and in the ideological education of the people. To this end a special decision was passed in August 1967.
In the period of communist construction, a bigger role than ever before is played by the CPSU, which with a membership of nearly 14 million is the leading and guiding force of Soviet society. This is due to the increased scale and complexity of the tasks involved in communist construction, the steadily rising creative activity of the masses, the drawing of new millions of people into the administration of the state and the management of production, the further development of socialist democracy and the enhancement of the role played by public organisations. The importance of the theory of scientific communism and of the communist education of the people is particularly pronounced in this period.
_-_-_~^^*^^ 23rd Congress of the CPSU, Moscow, 1966, p. 147.
47Guided by the tenets of Marxism-Leninism and creatively developing them, the Leninist Party confidently leads the Soviet people in the building of communism.
Communist construction in the USSR is lightened by the existence of the fraternal family of socialist states and by their assistance and support. In its turn, the USSR renders the other socialist countries invaluable assistance. The victory of socialist revolutions in a number of countries in Europe and Asia was facilitated by the Soviet Union's epochmaking victory over the then mightiest forces of world imperialism, by the very existence of the USSR and by its achievements and inspiring example. Had the Soviet Union not stood its ground in the life-and-death struggle against German nazism in 1941--1942 mankind's development might have been retarded by scores of years.
The Soviet Union did not allow the imperialists to interfere in the internal affairs of the socialist countries, prevented imperialist intervention and the export of counter-- revolution and thereby enabled the great majority of these countries to avoid civil war. Thanks to the disinterested assistance of the Soviet people, the young socialist countries quickly surmounted economic difficulties and began and successfully proceeded with socialist construction.
The Soviet Union shouldered a considerable part of the burden of creating a powerful system of defences to safeguard the socialist community, peace and the security of all nations, and the building of socialism and communism. The Soviet Union's missile-nuclear might is the fruit of gigantic efforts by the Party and the people. This might is a deterrent to the imperialist aggressors. Hans J. Morgenthau, a leading American expert in international problems, noted this fact and wrote that ``the United States cannot afford to wage an all-out atomic war because it cannot win such a war''.^^*^^
The world has entered a stage where its present and future depends more than ever before on the building of communism in the USSR and on socialist construction in the fraternal countries.
``The world socialist system,'' states the Main Document of the Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties held in Moscow on June 5-17, 1969, ``is the decisive force in the anti- _-_-_
~^^*^^ Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics in the Twentieth Century, Vol. Ill, Chicago, 1962, p. 140.
48 imperialist srtuggle. Each liberation struggle receives indispensable aid from the world socialist system, above all the Soviet Union.''^^*^^The extensive historical experience that has now been accumulated provides the most striking confirmation of one of Lenin's key tenets, namely, that the further development of the world socialist revolution depends directly on the successful fulfilment of the tasks of building the new, higher social system where the socialist revolution has been consummated. The building of communism in the USSR is of momentous international significance. Lenin prophetically said that ``our communist economic development will become a model for a future socialist Europe and Asia''.^^**^^ The development of the world socialist system daily provides confirmation of Lenin's forecast.
Soviet achievements arouse tremendous interest in the less developed countries, whose peoples stand before a choice of the road. The experience of fraternal co-operation between the USSR and the Mongolian People's Republic has shown the world that with Soviet assistance the developing countries can advance successfully along the road to socialism without passing through the stage of capitalist development. Today when the might of the USSR and the volume of its assistance have multiplied many times over, the possibility of noncapitalist development has become still more topical and feasible for the peoples of many countries. Small wonder that the number of countries building socialism is growing.
A feature of the contemporary world is that a number of developed capitalist states are seeking to shake off their bondage to the USA, a bondage disguised as military ``aid'' and formalised by aggressive military blocs. Objectively, national aspirations of this kind rely on the existence and role played by the Soviet Union and the world socialist system as a whole.
The immense growth of communism's prestige in the world and its impact on the minds of people derives from the Soviet successes in building the new society. Communism is winning new millions of adherents. Ezra Taft Benson, former US Secretary of Agriculture, said that ``never in _-_-_
~^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 21.
~^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 518.
__PRINTERS_P_49_COMMENT__ 4---2635 49 recorded history has any movement spread its power so far and so fast as has socialistic communism in the last three decades''.^^*^^The Soviet Union astonished the world by its achievements in all spheres of the economy and culture, and in major scientific researches. The American sociologist and journalist John Gunther notes that in no other country in the world is science so closely associated with society and with production.^^**^^
Parallel with all sorts of slanderous fabrications, bourgeois scientists have been compelled to admit the unprecedented rate of development in the USSR. The American scientist William Mandel writes that ``the USSR is the only country ever to industrialise without the aid of capital investment from abroad...''. This achievement, he adds, ``is greater still when the fantastic devastation of World War II is considered''.^^***^^
In the Soviet Union economic restoration proceeded much more quickly after the nazi invasion than after the intervention and the Civil War. This was due to the fact that the Soviet Union's economic and technical potential had grown incomparably during the pre-war years. The huge industrial centres built in the eastern regions during the period of the first five-year plans were the backbone not only of the country's defence (1,360 large industrial enterprises were evacuated to these regions during the war) but also of the post-war rehabilitation.
Truly spectacular results were achieved during the postwar rehabilitation and development of the socialist industry. In 1945, the year of victory over nazi Germany, the Soviet Union produced only 12 million tons of steel as against the US output of 75 million tons. In 1965 steel production totalled 91 million tons in the USSR and 121 million tons in the USA. In 1970 the USSR will produce 115 million tons of steel. The Soviet Union is thus coming close to the United States level of steel production. This industry remains the bedrock of the country's defence and of the further expansion of all branches of the national economy.
_-_-_~^^*^^ The Soviet System in Theory and Practice, ed. by Harry G. Shaffer, New York, 1965, p. 334.
~^^**^^ See John Gunther, Inside Russia Today, New York, 1962, p. 297.
~^^***^^ National Guardian, March 26, 1966, p. 6.
50A huge leap forward has been accomplished in the output of electric power, oil, gas, cement, coal, mineral fertilisers, tractors, sugar and leather footwear. The re-equipment of most branches of industry has been started.
__*_*_*__The achievements of communist construction in the USSR are indisputable. In the resolution adopted by the TwentyThird Congress of the CPSU on the CC report it is stated: ``The building of communism in the USSR and the all-sided improvement of Soviet socialist society are the basic contribution made by the CPSU and the entire Soviet people towards the world revolutionary process, towards the struggle of all peoples against imperialism, for peace, national independence, democracy and socialism.''^^*^^
The ``Left'' opportunists and the Chinese nationalists regard the building of socialism and communism as something outside the world revolutionary process. This shows their rupture with Marxism-Leninism and the petty-bourgeois substance of their views. Actually, as is demonstrated by obvious facts bearing out the conclusions of Marxist-Leninist theory, the creative work of the peoples of the socialist countries is an intrinsic part of the world revolutionary process. More, it is its decisive factor and mainstay.
By building communism the Soviet people fulfil their revolutionary, internationalist duty. Their dedicated work is powerfully influencing world development and the balance of forces between the two opposing social systems. The building of communism is a powerful lever for influencing the minds and hearts of millions of people in all countries and the development of world history. In competition with capitalism, the achievements of socialism facilitate and accelerate the world revolutionary process while being an inseparable part of it.
Even the most far-sighted bourgeois leaders have to admit today that a direct link exists between the successes of communism as a revolutionary force in the world and the economic, scientific and technological achievements in the USSR.
A noteworthy admission, for example, was made by the _-_-_
~^^*^^ 23rd Congress of the CPSU, p. 300.
51 United States Senator William J. Fulbright, who said that ``the success of communism as a revolutionary force in the world is ... the result of the impact and example of the Soviet state, which ... converted backward Russia into a powerful modern industrial society in the span of a single generation''.^^*^^The building of socialism and communism is the principal front of the present-day revolutionary class struggle and the main sector of the world revolutionary process. It constitutes the basic and decisive direction of the struggle between the two systems, and by moving in that direction the world socialist community, the Soviet Union above all, influence and will in future have an even more marked influence on the entire process of world revolution. ``The way things shape out in our country,'' L. I. Brezhnev said at the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in 1969, ``the successes in communist construction largely determine the scale and depth of the influence exerted by the Soviet Union's foreign policy on the international situation.''^^**^^ Hence, it follows that every working man and woman actively participating in communist construction in the Soviet Union is a genuine revolutionary, a direct participant in the great work of the revolutionary reorganisation of the world and a fighter of the great global army of the world socialist revolution.
Successful fulfilment of the new five-year plan is further convincing testimony of the fact that the Soviet people are steadfastly carrying out their internationalist duty to the working people of the fraternal socialist countries, the international proletariat and the world liberation movement.
The Soviet Union is safeguarding and augmenting its revolutionary moral and political strength, which has enabled it to stand its ground in the struggle against all hostile forces of the old world.
The Soviet Union's material, technological and economic might, which has grown immeasurably and continues to grow and today fully conforms to the majesty of the epochal tasks set by the October Revolution, now lies on the balance _-_-_
~^^*^^ William J. Fulbright, Prospects for the West, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1963, pp. 4-5.
~^^**^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, pp. 169--70.
52 of history. The gap between the grandeur of the tasks and the material possibilities for building communism, which Lenin wrote about in 1922, has now been closed.Successful communist construction in the Soviet Union and the building of socialism in other socialist countries are a powerful magnet attracting the working people of all countries. By increasing the economic and defence might of their country, the Soviet people are striking telling revolutionary blows at imperialism and thereby lending powerful assistance and support to all revolutionary, anti-imperialist, liberation forces and movements.
Great Lenin's immortal teaching and the cause of the October Revolution, which ushered in the epoch of socialism and communism, are embodied in the impressive achievements of the Soviet people, in their drive to fulfil the creative plans of the Communist Party.
[53] __ALPHA_LVL1__ DEVELOPMENTF. V. Konstantinov
__NOTE__ Author(s) is (are) above LVL in original.Marxist-Leninist philosophy---dialectical and historical materialism as the general theoretical foundation of the Marxist-Leninist teaching---naturally, plays a crucial role in the contemporary ideological struggle. The fight for and against Leninism was started during Lenin's lifetime. But it acquired particularly acute forms after Lenin's death. The central issue was, of course, that of the ways and prospects of development in the Soviet Union and of the possibility of building socialism in the USSR when it was encircled by capitalist countries.
But this vast general problem contained a series of other problems: the ways and means of socialist industrialisation in, a country devastated by two wars; the problem of reorganising the scattered and backward peasant economy and turning it into a large-scale socialist co-operative economy; the problem of wiping out illiteracy, the problem of mastering the great cultural heritage of mankind; the problem of turning the USSR into a country with the most advanced socialist culture; the problem of preserving and consolidating the alliance between the workers and the peasants, an alliance that forms the political foundation of Soviet power; the problem of preserving and strengthening fraternal friendship among the numerous nations and nationalities inhabiting the USSR; the problem of how to direct these nations and nationalities to the road of successful socialist construction. After Lenin's death, the Soviet people and the Communist Party were confronted with these and numerous other challenging problems.
54In tackling political, economic, social, ideological and military problems, the Central Committee, the theoreticians and the Leninist Party as a whole successfully upheld Marxism-Leninism as an integral teaching. They fought for Marxist philosophy, for revolutionary dialectics, for the creative development and implementation of Lenin's teaching, combating the Right and ``Left'' revisionists, those who sought to revise the basic principles of Leninism, and the dogmatists who were unable to apply revolutionary dialectics and turned it into scholasticism.
For decades and particularly in our day, in spite of facts, the opponents of Marxism, of dialectical and historical materialism, have endeavoured to prove that Marxism is a teaching of the 19th century, that it has grown obsolete and runs counter to the conditions, facts and reality of the 20th century, and to modern natural science.
Actually, it is the bourgeois philosophical and sociological theories that in their totality contradict the facts, reality and character of our epoch.
Marxism-Leninism is the only philosophy that has withstood the test of time, the test of the great events of our epoch.
Hegel called philosophy an epoch set in thought. This definition is extraordinarily profound. Marx called philosophy the spiritual quintessence of the epoch. But far from every philosophy fits into this lofty category. Every philosophy is the child, the creation of its times, but not every philosophy mirrors the substance, character, content and soul of its epoch.
In the capitalist world there are today many different philosophical schools and trends, major and minor. Each in its own way reflects some aspect of 20th-century life. Mostly, this is a misinterpreted, distorted or one-sided reflection, a tendentious reflection sustained by the viewpoint of one social group or another.
Today the whole world has been set in motion. And throughout the world all thinking people recognise that ours is an epoch of revolution: revolution in science and technology, and political, social and national liberation revolutions. The whole of spiritual life in the world is in the grip of revolution. Throughout the capitalist world people are re-assessing values. Revolutionary ideas have invaded 55 all spheres of human life in Europe, Asia, North and South America, and Africa.
What philosophy most adequately reflected and continues to reflect this revolutionary character, this revolutionary spirit of our epoch? Perhaps various positivist schools and trends appealing to experience, facts and phenomena but denying philosophy the right to get to the bottom of phenomena, the objective laws of movement and development operating independently of man? These trends deny science and philosophy the right of prevision. But this is a bad philosophy, a poor and unreliable guide in ordinary times, let alone in an epoch of revolution, in an epoch of great historical changes. In capitalist society considerable influence is wielded by neothomism, a religious philosophy that seeks to integrate theology with science. This is a philosophy of the past, not of the present or the future. It cannot serve as the ideological banner of progressive social forces.
Existentialism, a subjectivistic philosophy, has a very large following in capitalist society, chiefly among a section of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois intelligentsia. It comes forward under the banner of humanism and as its principal object of study it has selected man, the individual, regarding him abstractly, in isolation from the tasks and conditions that may lead to the individual's real emancipation from all forms of alienation, to genuine freedom. Existentialism is a pessimistic theory reflecting man's tragic destiny in the world of capitalism, in the world of alienated essences, of phenomena created by man and acting against him as a force alien and hostile to him.
Dialectical materialism, revolutionary dialectics is the only philosophy that adequately reflects the revolutionary character of the contemporary epoch. This philosophy is hostile to everything reactionary, conservative and outworn. It is an enemy of everything stagnant or fossilised. As the richest, most profound and comprehensive teaching of development in nature, society, thinking and cognition, materialist dialectics calls on people to move forward without resting content with what has been achieved. Dialectics requires a bold unearthing and settlement of the contradictions arising in life and in knowledge. It demands support for everything new, progressive and revolutionary against the old and outworn. Ultimately the new always vanquishes the old. Such is the inexorable law of development. As a method of 56 cognition and action, dialectics is critical and revolutionary by nature, by all its inner substance. It regards human knowledge as an everlasting, living, mighty, omnipotent and insuperable onward movement from ignorance to knowledge, from shallow to deeper knowledge, from relative and objective truth to absolute truth, never fully and completely achieving it. It whips up the human mind, keeping it from resting content with what has been achieved; it awakens a craving for more knowledge.
Revolutionary dialectics is opposed to dogmatism, bigotry, complacency in science, and to claims to the attainment of absolute knowledge. What other philosophy conforms to and reflects to such an extent the revolutionary, dynamic spirit and steady, onward sweep of 20th-century science?
Revolutionary dialectics is the only philosophy that places a reliable theoretical weapon in the hands of all the Marxist-Leninist Parties. That is why Lenin, the Party and its Central Committee have unremittingly devoted so much energy and attention to the further all-sided elaboration of dialectics as a science, as a theory of knowledge, as a method of revolutionary action. That is why Lenin and the Leninists have always been so earnest in combating all forms of metaphysics, dogmatism, eclecticism and sophism, all forms of subjectivist play in dialectics. In a philosophical work headed On the Significance of Militant Materialism Lenin wrote that the development of dialectics as a science had to be furthered creatively. He recommended publishing excerpts from the works of Hegel with accompanying examples from the dialectics of the development of modern capitalism.
As a means of enlarging on dialectical materialism and preventing idealism and positivism from filtering into theoretical natural science, Lenin recommended an alliance between Marxist philosophers and modern materialist natural scientists. This alliance, he wrote, was needed equally by modern naturalists and Marxist philosophers. ``It should be remembered,'' he pointed out, ``that the sharp upheaval which modern natural science is undergoing very often gives rise to reactionary philosophical schools and minor schools, trends and minor trends. Unless, therefore, the problems raised by the recent revolution in natural science are followed, and unless natural scientists are enlisted in the work 57 of a philosophical journal, militant materialism can be neither militant nor materialism.''^^*^^
After Lenin's death the development of philosophical thought in the USSR proceeded as a drive to carry out the tasks set by him.
Marxist philosophers devoted considerable time to a struggle against vulgar, mechanistic materialism, whose expounders included Lyubov Axelrod, I. Skvortsov-Stepanov, Alexander Varyash and A. K. Timiryazev. The principal expounder of mechanistic, anti-dialectical materialism was Nikolai Bukharin with his theory of equilibrium. For the Right opportunists this theory served as the philosophical foundation of their economic and political programme, as the philosophical basis for their theory of spontaneity, of spontaneous development. In philosophy and politics the struggle against mechanism naturally grew extremely acute. Crowded meetings at which heated debates took place and dialectics, Marxist philosophical materialism, was upheld in a struggle against simplified, vulgar materialism, were held in Moscow, Leningrad, Kharkov, Kiev and other cities. Marxist philosophical cadres grew, formed and became steeled in this tense situation. This struggle of Marxist philosophers against mechanism was reflected in extensive literature dealing with purely philosophical and sociological problems and with problems of the struggle against simplified, vulgar, anti-dialectical views in physics, chemistry, biology, political economy, historical science, literary criticism and aesthetics. Much was contributed to this struggle by the journal Pod znamenem marksizma {Under the Banner of Marxism], which carried articles devoted to philosophical problems of natural science. The alliance between Marxist philosophers and representatives of modern natural science was achieved and strengthened. The journal printed articles on problems of dialectics. But towards the beginning of the 1930s (in some cases even earlier) serious errors and distortions came to light in the work of the journal and in the school of A. M. Deborin, who headed the journal. Regrettably, the editors failed to cope with the task recommended by Lenin ---that of giving a materialistic interpretation of Hegel's dialectics. On many issues they erased the border-line between the idealistic dialectics of Hegel and the materialistic _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, pp. 232--33.
58 dialectics of Marx. This was the weak point of the Deborin school in the struggle against mechanistic materialism. A most serious retreat from the principles of materialism by the journal's editors was that they divorced philosophical theory from practice, from politics^But the main failing of Deborin and his school was that in a number of works they belittled Lenin's contribution to the development of Marxist philosophy, overlooking the fact that Lenin had raised Marxist philosophy to a new, higher level.
When the adversaries of Marxism assert that Marxism which was evolved a hundred years ago is obsolete, they deliberately ignore the fact that in our 20th century the teaching and philosophy of Marx were all-sidedly developed by Lenin. Marxism has never been and cannot be stagnant. The struggle for Leninism in the sphere of philosophy has been part and parcel of the Party's general struggle to achieve socialism, to mobilise all forces and means to attain the greatest objective after the October Socialist Revolution. This struggle demanded a herculean effort from the working class, the working peasantry, the Soviet intelligentsia, the Soviet Government and the Communist Party, which is the collective leader and inspirer of the Soviet people. In this struggle, in this advance along unexplored paths the Soviet people and the Communist Party were pioneers. And this great work, this unparalleled feat of building a new society, would have been inconceivable without the creative application and development of Marxist-Leninist theory, Marxist philosophy and, in particular, materialistic dialectics.
Our ill-wishers abroad are the only people who are so blind as to speak and write of the stagnation of theoretical thought in the USSR in the period of socialist construction, during the grim years of struggle against the capitalist encirclement and during the years of the life-and-death struggle with nazism. It would be hard to list all the great, pressing political and theoretical problems that arose every year, every month, at every abrupt turn in history. It would be hard to list all the contradictions and difficulties that we had to surmount in practice by applying -theory, revolutionary dialectics.
After Lenin's death some mistakes were made in the course of socialist construction. The personality cult damaged the development of 59 Marxist theory and philosophy. It fettered theoretical thinking, pushing it into dogmatism and reducing it to commentary. The Leninist Party and the Soviet people found in themselves the strength to surmount this phenomenon. Theoretical thought, including philosophy, cannot be stopped. Life, the practice of socialist construction and the extremely complex international situation demanded repeated analyses of events and the situation, and theoretical answers to new problems. These answers were furnished chiefly by the Party, by its Central Committee and theoretical cadres.
Is it possible to build socialism in one country taken separately? The theoretical answer to this question was furnished by Lenin. He formulated and theoretically substantiated the ways and means of fulfilling this task. His plan called for industrialisation, electrification and collectivisation. But in carrying out Lenin's plan the Party and the people encountered innumerable perplexing difficulties and innumerable enemies.
The Party and its theoretical cadres, philosophers among them, surmounted these difficulties. Perhaps, there was a better way of achieving this, with fewer sacrifices. But we were the pioneers and had no models, no historical examples to draw on. Besides, war clouds were gathering over our heads. We were not free to set the time-limit either for industrialisation or collectivisation. In ten years we had to achieve an industrial build-up which had taken other countries 100--150 years.
It is a complicated and difficult task to evolve the theory of dialectics. But the dialectics of history follows a path that is even more tortuous. And the difficulties besetting it are even more formidable. Here is one more example from the sphere of historical dialectics---the cultural revolution in a backward country such as Russia used to be, where prior to the Revolution 71.6 per cent of the population were illiterate. How was this revolution to be accomplished? How was it to be tackled? What had to be the attitude to the cultural heritage of the past? How was this heritage to be preserved, assimilated and enlarged? These were the problems that had to be resolved in theory and practice. They were coped with brilliantly by the Party and the Government. The proof of this is that today 56.4 per cent of the working population have either a secondary or higher education; there is a 27-million strong intelligentsia; the Soviet 60 Union has scored monumental achievements in science and technology; the world's first artificial satellites and spaceships were launched by the Soviet Union.
A new socio-economic system putting an end to mankind's prehistory and ushering in its real history, consciously made and directed by the people, can only emerge on a solid scientific foundation, on the foundation of MarxismLeninism, of research into the objective laws of social development. Dialectical and historical materialism were the theoretical weapons ably used by the Communist Party in changing the old world and creating the new, socialist world.
Without combating dogmatism and the various forms of revisionism the Soviet Union would have been unable to ensure the building of socialism. During the most difficult years of socialist construction, as in the period of the October Revolution, the Communist Party and its theoretical cadres waged a struggle against the decrepit dogmas of the West European and Russian Social-Democrats. The character, spirit and nature of the problems with which the Soviet people and the Party had to grapple demanded courageous innovation.
In a letter to Joseph Bloch, editor of the journal Sozialistische Monatshefte, Frederick Engels wrote that in view of the evolution of the materialistic, i.e., genuinely scientific understanding of history, human history from the most remote times to our day would have to be written anew. This applies not only to history but also to jurisprudence, literary criticism, aesthetics, ethnography and philology. For that reason one of the results of the development of Marxist philosophical thought in the USSR is that Marxist dialectics and historical materialism have become the method and soul of all the humanities.
During the years of socialist construction Marxist philosophical ideas penetrated deep into the thick of the masses: workers, intellectuals and collective farmers. Under Soviet power the entire country was turned into a mammoth university. The Revolution and the building of the new society awakened in the masses an insatiable craving for knowledge. Marxist-Leninist philosophy has been and continues to be studied not only in a huge number of institutions of higher learning, but also at numerous circles, seminars and courses at factories, research institutions and laboratories, and in towns and villages throughout the country.
One of the greatest victories of Marxist philosophy is that 61 it liberated tens of millions of people from the hold of religious ideas and armed them with a progressive, scientific world outlook. Everybody knows of the importance Lenin attached to the struggle against religion, to atheistic propaganda and the moulding of a materialistic scientific world outlook. Much has been done in this direction, although religious ideas cling on tenaciously to this day among the backward section of the population. For that reason the drive for an atheistic world outlook must be continued.
What philosophical and sociological problems devoted to events of historic significance have been worked out and resolved by the Party after Lenin's death? In the Philosophical Notebooks and On the Significance of Militant Materialism Lenin set Marxists the task of comprehensively elaborating materialistic dialectics as a science, as the logic and theory of cognition. In the period of over 50 years since the Revolution Marxists have written works on the dialectics in Marx's Capital, on the problems of dialectics in the works of Lenin, on the dialectics of the development of modern capitalism, on the dialectics of the development of socialist society, on the system of categories of dialectics, on the theory of reflection and on individual laws and categories of dialectical logic. A six-volume history of world philosophy and a three-volume history of philosophy, published earlier, are fundamental Marxist treatises tracing the history of the struggle between materialism and idealism, between dialectics and metaphysics. The sixth volume of this work and the supplementing works on the history of philosophy and sociology in the USSR and in the European socialist countries deal with the development of philosophy, including dialectics, in the USSR after the October Revolution.
The first-ever five-volume encyclopaedia of Marxist philosophy has been brought out. Four volumes have been printed, and the last volume is to be printed shortly.
Philosophical problems of modern natural science occupy an important place in the work of Soviet philosophers. The significance of Soviet research into problems of the dialectics of nature of the 20th century is that it is being conducted by Marxist philosophers together with leading natural scientists.
At one time some philosophers committed the serious error of oversimplifying the approach to special problems of 62 natural science (the theory of relativity, genetics and cybernetics) and thereby undermined the alliance between Marxist philosophers and materialistic natural scientists. This error has been rectified. Soviet natural scientists support and actively propagate dialectical materialism, and this is one of the finest achievements of our epoch.
In recent years researches, monographs and papers have .been written which in their totality give a fairly comprehensive picture of Lenin's contribution to the development of dialectical materialism. They are a gratifying result of our endeavour over many years, of the joint effort of prominent philosophers and natural scientists.
These works open the road for a further advance in this sphere. Nonetheless, they have not dealt with every aspect of Lenin's philosophical heritage. Unless Lenin's heritage is studied in its entirety the latest data of natural science cannot be profoundly comprehended philosophically. Precisely because during the initial decades of this century Lenin raised and resolved key problems of philosophical science, his thoughts, practical work and method live on and operate in. every sphere of modern knowledge and act as a powerful driving force of the contemporary development of dialectical, materialistic philosophy. There are, of course, natural scientists who maintain that Lenin's works do not influence the development of natural science because they deal solely with ideological questions. But these are not the claims that determine the true role played by Lenin's theoretical heritage.
Soviet philosophers and natural scientists, and also progressive scientists throughout the world draw on and shall go on drawing on the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin. But it is one thing to draw on an authoritative source and another to hide behind it. The modern scientific and technological revolution has raised questions which did not and could not confront the classics of Marxism-Leninism. Therefore, to believe that it is possible to go on living by relying solely on the conclusions of the classics of MarxismLeninism is to belittle the authority of Marxist-Leninist philosophy and of its founders. This makes it incumbent on us to develop Marxist-Leninist philosophy creatively and adhere to its revolutionary spirit, to go beyond the heritage left by the founders of Marxism-Leninism and stop living on philosophical rent.
63As a scientific outlook, dialectical materialism helps natural scientists to steer clear of errors and avoid groping in the dark, serving them as a reliable compass in their quest for truth. Marxist-Leninist philosophy does not force on the natural sciences any ready-made, everlasting truths and does not attempt to resolve the specific problems confronting natural scientists. By emancipating the mind, by freeing it from dogmas, prejudices, ``eternal truths" and so on, it gives the scientist a method of scientifically understanding reality, a method specified by natural science in its application to special fields of knowledge. Lenin defined science and historical development ``as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing), with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality''.^^*^^
The classics of Marxism-Leninism have left us a priceless philosophical heritage. Time cannot change it. On the contrary, with every new discovery of the natural sciences we get a profounder understanding of the fundamental principles of philosophical materialism. These principles are part of the treasure-store of Marxist-Leninist philosophical science and of the treasure-store of the methodology of the natural sciences. Renunciation of the principles of dialectical materialism is tantamount to renunciation of MarxismLeninism.
Recent years have witnessed the accumulation of vast new theoretical and experimental material and the appearance of new sciences and new scientific trends. These are the achievements in the study of the atomic nucleus and the use of thermonuclear energy, the exploration of outer space, progress in cybernetics, electronics, chemistry, molecular biology, and so on. Physics, biology and other natural sciences are again confronted with extremely complex fundamental problems, which evidently cannot be resolved without changing the established systems of scientific concepts in the way that they were changed in connection with the revolution in physics early in the 20th century.
A creative solution of these problems requires the further development, above all, of philosophical science itself. In the field of dialectical materialism we are now faced with similarly difficult and similarly impressive tasks as had _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 362.
64 faced Lenin in his day. Engels, it will be recalled, suggested that philosophical materialism had to change its form with every major, epoch-making discovery by natural science. Under the modern revolutionising discoveries of science, this suggestion receives profound concretisation and creative embodiment.The cascade of astounding discoveries in the physics of elementary particles, the philosophical problems raised by the development of cybernetics, the quests for a new definition of the substance of life and the philosophical problems of chemistry, the science of the earth, astronomy and other fields of knowledge not only demand a philosophical, dialectical-materialist assessment but raise the question of the further development of philosophy. The solution of all these problems would mark the beginning of a new stage in the development of dialectical materialism. Interesting fragments of this general picture have been produced, for instance, by the researches into the classification of sciences and by a philosophical analysis of the principle of causality, the principle of conformity in modern science, the new categories of the element of structure, symmetry and asymmetry, and so forth.
New problems are constantly arising before Soviet philosophers. These are problems of the contemporary stage of the interaction between mathematics and natural science, the role played by mathematics in the formation of new, more profound and generalising concepts, the modern definition of the essence of life, the methodology of the interaction of the entire range of sciences in the study of the Earth and outer space, general problems of the development of science as a large and complex system, and so on.
Differentiation between the sciences is one of the fundamental laws of the development of all sciences, including Marxist philosophy. For example, empirical sociology, ethics, aesthetics and scientific communism have evolved into distinct spheres of philosophical knowledge. The problems of scientific communism have been studied by economists ( problems of political economy), sociologists and representatives of the juridical sciences. During the past few years the need for teaching and developing Marxist science has led to the singling out of the socio-political problems of communist construction into a sphere of their own---scientific communism. Here we do not, of course, have a precise and strict __PRINTERS_P_65_COMMENT__ 5---2635 65 demarcation between the problems of the political economy of socialism, sociology and juridical sciences, but this should not affect research. Life demands comprehensive sociological investigations of the socio-political problems of the development of socialist society. This approach ensures the most allembracing, objective research and makes it possible to give practical effect to its results.
Naturally, during these years Soviet philosophers and sociologists have devoted special attention to the problem of unravelling new laws and motive forces of the development of socialist society. The general sociological problem of the socio-economic system as such was tackled in this connection and on this basis. Bourgeois sociology and economic science continue, as they have always done, to regard capitalism and its laws as something natural, eternal and immutable. Marx creatively refuted this metaphysical view. The October Revolution, the triumph of socialism in the USSR and the formation of the world socialist system have in practice disproved the theories of the bourgeois sociologists and economists. But the task has arisen of revealing and showing the new laws and motive forces of society that have ousted capitalism.
Bourgeois sociologists and economists, Walt Rostow and Raymond Aron among them, and also revisionists and the Maoist dogmatists (revisionists of the Right and revisionistsdogmatists of the ``Left'' display a touching unity here) try to prove that Soviet socialist society, the world socialist system and modern capitalist society are nothing more than varieties of one and the same industrial society. Meanwhile, the so-called theory of convergence, expounded by some bourgeois philosophers and sociologists, seeks to prove that the Soviet and capitalist societies are both developing in one and the same direction and that at some point they will merge into a single society. Marxists hold that capitalism is fraught with revolution and that sooner or later it will evolve into socialist society through revolutionary transformation. The exponents of industrial society and of the theory of convergence (Mao Tse-tung, for instance) believe that socialist society will turn into a single industrial society. We thus have two opposing concepts, two opposing outlooks.
Socialist society is the first, lowest phase of the new, communist socio-economic system. It is founded on the integration of producers with the means of production, on the 66 socialist mode of production, on public (state) and co-- operative ownership of the means of production, and on conformity of the relations of production to the character of the new productive forces. Socialism puts an end to exploitation of man by man and to the subjugation of people by the productive forces and relations of production created by them. This has opened up unlimited scope for the development of the productive forces and of man himself. Planned development not only of production but of society is one of the cardinal laws of socialism as a whole. In socialist society the balance between spontaneity and consciousness has changed fundamentally in favour of the latter. Under socialism not only economic but also social development is planned and directed, but elements of unenvisaged and unplanned development also continue to exist. However, the general direction of development is determined by the Marxist policy of the Party and the Government, a policy resting on the objective laws of social progress.
The law of development of all antagonistic formations, of capitalism in particular, is that all contradictions and antagonisms grow increasingly more acute: the antagonism between exploiters and the exploited, between the rich and the poor, between mental and physical work, between man and machinery, between the colossal socialisation of production and private ownership, and so on and so forth. In socialist society, on the other hand, the advance is towards the steady erasure of the distinctions between classes, towards increasing social homogeneity, towards communist equality. This is a complex, difficult and contradictory process and it takes much longer than we sometimes supposed. The abolition of all distinctions between the working classes, between mental and physical work and between town and countryside, and the attainment of complete social equality require the creation of the appropriate material and technical basis, the utilisation of all the finest achievements of modern science and technology and a level of labour productivity that would ensure an abundance of material blessings.
A fundamental law of socialism and of the future communism is the provision of all facilities for the development of the talents and gifts of every member of society. Much has already been done in this sphere. But still more is to be done. The maxim, law and purpose of socialist and of __PRINTERS_P_67_COMMENT__ 5* 67 communist society is: All for man, for the sake of man, for his welfare and happiness and for the all-round development of his abilities.
One of the most important problems of Marxist philosophy and sociology, to which the works and researches of Soviet philosophers and sociologists are devoted, is that of man, of socialist humanism. This problem receives considerable attention also from modern bourgeois philosophy and sociology in the West. It is the central problem of existentialism, too. Some foreign philosophers seek to supplement Marxism with existentialism. After the publication of Marx's Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, some ``Marxists'' turned from the mature Marx, the author of the Manifesto and Capital, to the young Marx. Much in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 is valuable and brilliant. These works and the ideas expounded in them should not be consigned to oblivion or, much less, farmed out to bourgeois ideologists. But it is a cruel mistake to think that the entire range of Marx's humanism is contained in these early works, when he had not yet shaken off the influence of Hegel and Feuerbach and was still making such wide use of the category of alienation, which occupies a much more modest place in his own classical works and in the works of Engels and Lenin. The reason it occupies such a modest place is not that they had ceased to be humanists. On the contrary, genuine humanism permeates the entire teaching of scientific communism, the whole of Marxist-Leninist philosophy and political economy. It should not be forgotten that in Capital Marx exposes the inhumanity of the economic and social system of capitalism and comes to the revolutionary conclusion that this inhuman system has to be destroyed. Love of man has been preached for hundreds and thousands of years by religious and atheistic humanists, by philosophers and sociologists, but the man of labour remained chained and fettered. Marxism was the only philosophy that showed the real way to destroy all forms of slavery, oppression and alienation and build a society where the free development of each person would be the condition for the free development of all. In the Marxist-Leninist theory of the class struggle, in the theory of the socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat there is a hundred times more humanism than in all the bourgeois and revisionist writings taken together.
68Soviet philosophers, sociologists and psychologists have lately been making a special study of the problems of the personality and of the problems of socialist and bourgeois humanism. To change the nature of man that took many millennia to form is an extraordinarily intricate and lengthy process. Nevertheless, the new man of Soviet, socialist society is no longer a dream but an historical reality. This new man---a collectivist, an internationalist, a fighter against imperialism, a revolutionary and humanist, a man armed with the most progressive world outlook of our age---already exists. He accomplished the October Revolution. While changing the old world of social relations and building the new world, he changed his own character. He defeated nazism, mankind's deadliest enemy. This was a great feat requiring love of the socialist motherland and of mankind, courage, valour, heroism and staunchness. The victory over nazism was not merely a military victory. It was a victory of the Soviet socialist system over the capitalist, nazi system; it was a victory of the Soviet man armed with the socialist ideology of internationalism over the brutal ideology of racism and nationalism. A contribution to this victory was also made by Marxist philosophical thought, which through the Leninist Party educated and inspired Soviet people, giving them faith in victory.
True, the Soviet man is not yet completely free of the birthmarks of the old system, of some backward ways of thinking. These ways manifest themselves, above all, in everyday life. But all this is surmountable.
One of the tasks that Lenin had set representatives of the humanitarian sciences, including Marxist sociologists, was to conduct concrete social researches. The aim of these researches was to throw light on the mechanism governing the operation of economic and social laws at a given time and place, sum up the advanced experience of communist construction, and expose and criticise negative phenomena hindering the development of the new. These studies were conducted over a period of many years by the Party and by Soviet economists and sociologists. But, as the practice of communist construction has shown during the past few years, the scientific administration of society requires further and broader sociological research in various fields by sociologists and also by economists and jurists. The development of Marxist sociology---historical materialism---also requires 69 concrete sociological investigations. In this field some advance has already been made.
Mathematical methods of investigation are being employed on a growing scale in economics and sociology. But when mathematical methods are applied, theory and philosophy, i.e., the ideological aspect of science, must not be forgotten.
Bourgeois sociologists have begun to preach the deideologisation of science, of sociology in particular. They hold that in the 20th century sociology is giving way to technology, that technology is capable of resolving all contemporary problems while ideology only acts as a barrier, standing in the way of objective cognition.
The purpose of this theory is to disarm the Marxists and the working class ideologically. Bourgeois ideology is hostile to science, to objective scientific research. On the other hand, Marxist sociology and ideology are interrelated and inseparable.
A distinguishing feature of philosophical development in the USSR is that Marxist philosophy and Marxist ideas have been adopted by the broad masses. In the past philosophy was only accessible to individuals or a few selected schools and circles. The purpose of Marxist philosophy is to serve as a weapon of the working class and its Party in the revolutionary transformation of the world. A philosophy plays this role only when its ideas are embraced by the masses. In the Soviet Union the ideas of Marxism-Leninism have won the minds of millions of people.
__*_*_*__The Communist Party has always been true to Marxist principles. It regards Marxism-Leninism as a monolithic, integral teaching moulded from a single piece of steel. It continues, as it has always done, to wage a determined struggle against dead dogmas and revisionism of all hues. Leninism is the supreme example of a bold, revolutionary attitude to theory, an example of how fidelity to the fundamental principles of Marxist teaching should be correctly and scientifically combined with the fearless, creative development and enrichment of this teaching. Theory is not a dogma but a guide to revolutionary action---such is the maxim 70 of Lenin and the Leninist Party. To this attitude to theory the Communist Party and the working class owe their great achievements.
Deep-going changes and transformations are taking place in the world all the time. Much has taken place and continues to take place in the life of the peoples of all countries and continents: the might and influence of the world socialist system and of the world communist and working-class movement are growing; the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America are awakening to activity and beginning to make their own history; the scientific and technological revolution is spreading in breadth and depth and the social productive forces are growing; under capitalism these forces have acquired the nature of formidable destructive elements directed against mankind; parallel with the old deepening contradictions of modern capitalism, new contradictions have appeared and are growing. The socialist countries, the international working class and all mankind are confronted with great tasks, some of which have never been so pressing as today. The more difficult and impressive the tasks confronting the Party, the working class, the country and the world communist movement, the greater are the demands on the social sciences for further creative development and strict objectivity, for profound, accurate and scientific investigations of social processes, and for conclusions based on these investigations.
The fact that Marxist theory, the social sciences and Marxist philosophy comprise the theoretical foundation of the home and foreign policy pursued by the Communist Party and the socialist state and provide the guideline for the activity of the people devolves on scientists a tremendous responsibility for the accuracy and objectivity of theoretical studies.
Subjectivism, departures from objective truth, misrepresentation of historical truth and a time-serving approach to the study of social problems are alien to the spirit and substance of Marxism-Leninism and can harm our cause substantially. Lenin wrote: ``The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true.''^^*^^ This has always been the guideline of the Party and its Central Committee. It must always be an immutable law of the theoretical work of scientists.
_-_-_~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 23.
71The Party has set Soviet scientists great and responsible tasks in further enriching Marxist theory and sociology and conducting concrete social studies. These tasks derive from the demands of life, from the requirements of communist construction.
Lately, there has been an intensification of the attacks on Marxism-Leninism, and attempts are being made to belittle Lenin's role as a thinker, as a great theoretician, who raised Marxism to a new, higher stage and enriched all aspects and components of Marxism. Attempts are made to proclaim the theoretically immature writings of Mao Tse-tung as the Marxism of the present epoch.
There is in the world a category of people who, while claiming to develop Marxist philosophy have, in fact, betrayed it long ago. They reject dialectical and historical materialism and preach a variety of bourgeois and pettybourgeois humanism. They counterpose Engels to Marx, the young Marx to the mature Marx and, of course, reject Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-Criticism as an ``obsolete'' work.
These critics of Leninism consider that the cardinal problem of philosophy is not that of the relation of thinking to being, but the problem of man, the problem of the individual, as though it can be scientifically resolved outside dialectical and historical materialism, as though two outlooks--- materialistic and idealistic---do not clash over the problem of man and humanism. The new-fledged critics of Leninism reject Lenin's theory of reflection in the sphere of the theory of knowledge as being allegedly a conformist, time-serving theory that fails to take the active role of knowledge and consciousness into consideration. The reader will say that this is quite absurd: Lenin and his (and, of course, Marx's and Engels's) theory of reflection---and passivity! These critics counterpose Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-Criticism to his Philosophical Notebooks where, reading Hegel, Lenin writes: ``Man's consciousness not only reflects the objective world, but creates it.''^^*^^ But consciousness and knowledge play a great creative, transformative role only when they faithfully, adequately and objectively reflect the world and reality. Otherwise they are nothing more than idealism, subjectivism and voluntarism.
_-_-_~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 212.
72Foreign opponents sometimes ask Soviet philosophers the ridiculous question: ``What do you hold higher---Marxist orthodoxy or truth?" For creative Marxists-Leninists these have always coincided. Orthodox Marxism has always required a creative development of philosophical and sociological theory in accordance with reality. This is the teaching of Marxist dialectics. This was how Lenin had always acted. And this is how the Party, following Lenin, acts today.
At present the struggle for Leninism cannot be waged successfully without a simultaneous struggle against revisionism and also against die-hard dogmatism, which is actually open revisionism and a betrayal of the fundamental aspect of Marxism---its revolutionary dialectics---which requires a concrete historical approach to phenomena and events and binds us to look ahead, not back, to see the new developments in life and, accordingly, chart our strategy and tactics in the struggle for communism. In this lies the genuinely revolutionary spirit of Leninism.
In all fields of its activity the Communist Party is guided by the great teaching of Marxism-Leninism. Drawing upon revolutionary theory and the knowledge of the objective laws of social development, it formulates and implements its policy in economic, social and cultural life.
[73] __ALPHA_LVL1__ DEVELOPMENTA. I. Pashkov
__NOTE__ Author(s) is (are) above LVL in original.The political economy of socialism is an intrinsic, inseparable part of Marxist-Leninist political economy, that part which brings to light the relations of production in socialist society and examines their emergence and evolution into the relations of production of communism. It reveals the laws governing the production of material values, their distribution, exchange and consumption in society effecting the transition from capitalism to socialism, and in socialist society which gradually evolves into communist society. It may also be defined as the science treating of the buildup of the economy of socialist society, its functioning and its conversion into the economy of communist society.
The political economy of socialism is the main aspect of the entire economic theory of socialism and communism. It embraces the economy of socialist industry, the economy of agriculture and so on, and also special economic sciences such as finances of the USSR, the science of planning the socialist economy, and so forth. It serves as the theoretical foundation for these branch and special economic sciences.
The rise and development of the political economy of socialism is a striking manifestation of the creative enrichment of the great teaching of Marxism-Leninism in conformity with the new epoch of mankind's transition from capitalism to socialism and communism started in October 1917. The political economy of socialism is the principal part of the Leninist stage of the development of Marxist political economy.
74Pivotal propositions on the ways and means of society's transition from capitalism to socialism and communism are to be found in the works of Marx and Engels and in the pre-Revolution works of Lenin. Furthermore, these works contain exceedingly important postulates on the economy of socialism and communism and on the laws of socialist economic management. These postulates of the founders of scientific communism serve as the ideological and theoretical source for the political economy of socialism, and have played a tremendous role in its emergence and development. However, the political economy of socialism could appear and develop only parallel with the appearance and development of the real socialist relations of production, the key prerequisite for which was the Great October Revolution, which established the dictatorship of the proletariat in the USSR. In September 1917 Lenin wrote: ``We do not claim that Marx knew or Marxists know the road to socialism down to the last detail. It would be nonsense to claim anything of the kind. What we know is the direction of this road, and the class forces that follow it; the specific, practical details will come to light only through the experience of the millions when they take things into their own hands.''^^*^^ After the October Revolution, when the working class of the USSR started building socialism, Lenin frequently stressed that in no book was it written how socialism ought to be built, that from an abstract theory socialism had now moved to the sphere of practical life, of the practical decision of the day-to-day problems of economic life. The practical building of the economy of socialism in the USSR created not only the possibility but also the imperative need for the emergence and development of the political economy of socialism. As distinct from all preceding economic systems, socialism appears and develops not spontaneously but by plan, through the conscious activity of people guided by the Communist, working-class Party and the Government, which express the interests and will of the working people themselves. An economic theory---the political economy of socialism above all---serves as a powerful ideological weapon in the hands of the builders of socialism and communism, and as a scientific foundation for determining the economic policy of the Party and the Government.
_-_-_~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 281.
75It appeared and was initially developed at a time when the proletarian revolution was accomplished in one country and socialist construction proceeded for many years in a situation where that country was completely encircled by capitalist states.
It arose, took shape and developed gradually parallel with the rise, formation and development of socialist relations of production, on the concrete material of one country that had taken the road of proletarian revolution, a country that was not among the economically most developed states. Time and again Lenin emphasised that the fundamental laws of the proletarian revolution and socialist construction in the USSR would be applicable in all other countries taking the road of socialism but that, at the same time, the revolution and socialist construction in the USSR had many features deriving from the specific historical conditions obtaining in the Soviet Union. Lenin's postulate on the community of the fundamental laws of the socialist revolution and socialist construction and his belief that these general laws inevitably manifest themselves in different form in different groups of countries depending on the concrete historical conditions obtaining in these countries have been tested and confirmed by the experience of other countries, which took the road of socialist development after the Second World War.
The political economy of socialism is a theoretical science revealing the laws of economic development not of some one but of all countries following the road to socialism. It shows the laws governing socialist construction in all countries and the laws operating only in individual groups of countries. It reveals the general and specific forms in which the economic laws of socialist construction and the laws of socialist economic management manifest themselves.
The political economy of socialism owes its rise and development to the theoretical work of the CPSU. The Party's decisions on economic problems and the reports and speeches of its leaders substantiating these decisions rest on the vast practical experience of the people and express the collective thinking and single will of the Party, which is the leader and organiser of the masses. The Party directs the scientific work of the economists.
As distinct from the Marxist-Leninist political economy of capitalism, whose cardinal purpose is scientifically to 76 criticise economic life under the bourgeois system, lay bare its antagonistic contradictions and historical impotence, and show the inevitability of its revolutionary downfall, the political economy of socialism serves the positive task of creating a new and higher system of social life conforming to the interests of the working people. The creation of the economy of socialism and communism and the practice of socialist economic management also demand the scientific disclosure of the contradictions (non-antagonistic) of the socialist system and of the ways of eradicating these contradictions. In order to secure a steady improvement of the socialist economic system, the political economy of socialism has to be uninterruptedly developed, and the need for replacing obsolete forms and methods with more efficient methods of economic management must be substantiated.
In the political economy of socialism (as of capitalism) we must distinguish between its content and method. These two aspects are closely interrelated. The depth to which problems are understood and interpreted depends on how far the methodology of science has been elaborated. The content of political economy developed alongside the development of its object---socialist relations of production. Therefore, the stages of the history of this science coincide, in the main, with the stages of the post-Revolution economic history of the USSR and of the history of other socialist countries. The elaboration of the methodological problems of the political economy of socialism has its logic of development, which does not always coincide with the logic of development of this science's content.
__*_*_*__An immense contribution to the rise and development of the political economy of socialism has been made by the works of Lenin. He drew on the experience of the October Socialist Revolution and the initial years of economic development during the period of transition in the USSR to lay the foundations of this science.
In uncompromising struggle with the revisionism and opportunism of the leaders of the Second International, Lenin upheld and, in conformity with the epoch of imperialism, developed the Marxist teaching that the downfall of capitalism and the triumph of the higher system---socialism 77 and communism---are inevitable. Having created the Marxist theory of imperialism, he showed the untenability of the assertions of the revisionists and opportunists that the contradictions of capitalism ``soften up" as capitalism develops and that capitalism can ``evolve peacefully" into socialism. He demonstrated that imperialism is the highest and last stage of capitalist development, that it is the eve of the proletarian revolution, and that state-monopoly capitalism signifies a tremendous acceleration of the process which prepares the material prerequisites of the new system. Lenin's conclusion that socialism can triumph initially in one country, which does not necessarily have to be among those with the highest level of economic development, released the revolutionary initiative of the working class of Russia.
Lenin's earlier works on the economic system of 20 thcentury Russia and on the economic situation in the country after the February revolution provided the groundwork for his scientific postulate, put forward after the February revolution, that the bourgeois-democratic revolution inescapably and rapidly evolves into a socialist revolution.
The economic platform of the Bolsheviks, formulated by Lenin in 1917, underlay the ideological and political preparations for the October Revolution. Lenin proved that realisation of the demands made by the Bolsheviks at the time---the confiscation of the landed estates and the nationalisation of all the land in the country, the institution of workers' control over production and the distribution of products, the integration and nationalisation of the banks, the nationalisation of the syndicates and the whole of largescale industry, the establishment of state monopoly over foreign trade, and so on---was absolutely necessary in order to save the country from the impending economic catastrophe. He emphasised that by giving effect to these measures when the political power was in the hands of the working class society would achieve a tangible advance towards socialism.
Immense importance attaches to Lenin's proposition that the proletariat has to adopt a different attitude to the economic apparatus set up by the bourgeoisie than to the bourgeois political apparatus of state. The latter is dismantled and replaced with a new type of political organisation---the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The economic apparatus---the banks, syndicates, the post office, the co-- operatives and so on---is not destroyed. It is purified of 78 everything connected with the exploitation of some people by others, given a democratic content and placed in the service of the people.
The Bolshevik economic platform formulated by Lenin was a concrete answer to the most pressing question---what the proletariat of Russia had to do to save the country from the impending catastrophe and begin the advance towards socialism. It was, at the same time, a concrete expression and creative development of the Marx and Engels programme of economic measures which the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat had to carry out as the first step of the great, revolutionary transformation of capitalist into socialist society. Lenin pointed out that in other countries the specific ways and means of this transformation might differ from the ways and means employed in the USSR.
Lenin's line of transition to a socialist revolution and the Bolshevik economic platform were approved in the decisions of the Seventh All-Russia Conference of the RSDLP and the Sixth Congress of the RSDLP. The victory of the October Revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat were the key conditions under which the Bolshevik economic platform was successfully implemented in November-December 1917 and throughout 1918. The new, socialist economic system, which immediately occupied a predominant position in the entire national economy, was the first of its kind in history. The period of society's transition from capitalism to socialism commenced in the USSR.
In works written before and after the October Revolution Lenin enlarged on the teaching of Marx and Engels about the period of transition as being a lengthy period of the revolutionary transformation of capitalist into socialist society. He developed the Marxist teaching about the dictatorship of the proletariat as being the decisive force of this transformation, and showed the economic role, tasks and functions of the dictatorship of the proletariat on the basis of the experience gained in the USSR.
In developing the Marxist teaching on the relationship between the economy and politics, Lenin showed that under the dictatorship of the proletariat, too, politics are the concentrated expression, generalisation and consummation of the economy and that here also it was necessary to abide rigidly by the Marxist principle of according priority to politics over the economy in the sense that a politically correct 79 approach had to be adopted towards the solution of economic problems, that the solution should help to consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat, Soviet power and the triumph of socialism, and strengthen the alliance between the working class and the peasantry, and friendship among the Soviet peoples engaged in building socialism.
During the very first months of Soviet power Lenin put forward and substantiated the exceedingly important proposition that the popular masses play the decisive role in the building of socialism and communism. In the proletarian revolution the working class and all other working people have a fundamentally different role and task than in the bourgeois revolution: in the latter revolution their role is reduced to the destruction of the obsolete, feudal forms of social life, while the creative work of building up the new, bourgeois forms of the economy is in the hands of the bourgeoisie. In the socialist revolution, on the other hand, the broad masses of working people not only demolish the old, bourgeois forms but create the new, socialist forms of economic life, and this is the cardinal and most difficult task of the proletarian revolution. The working masses create the new forms of the economy themselves. Hence the vital importance which attaches to their activity, class awareness and creative initiative in economic life. Lenin also substantiated the great role played by the Communist Party as the vanguard of the working people, as a dynamic force organising and directing the building of socialism and communism.
In response to the new problem of the working class taking over the direction of the national economy and the management of nationalised enterprises, Lenin formulated the basic principles, forms and methods of socialist economic management. He proved that it was both possible and necessary to promote the national economy by plan, and substantiated the tasks and the key forms and methods of socialist economic planning. He scientifically showed that economic management had to be based on democratic centralism combining centralised management of the economy from above, by the socialist state, with the creative activity of the people. He emphasised that the dictatorship of the proletariat was not only and not so much an instrument of violence against the exploiting classes, as a new and higher ( compared with capitalism) type of organisation of labour, and provided a solid foundation for its cardinal principles and 80 had to be combined with the broad participation of the forms. One-man management of state enterprises, he said, working people in discussing the work of the enterprise. The workers had to be consistently given a material incentive to promote the growth and profitability of production, and this incentive had to be combined with new, moral stimuli for work under conditions of public ownership of the means of production. In his works Lenin showed that it was necessary to evolve a new, socialist labour discipline founded primarily on the awareness of the workers that their personal interests coincided with those of the collective, and on their sense of responsibility to the collective and to society as a whole. He used the concrete experience gained in the USSR to set out the principles and forms of labour remuneration operating at socialist enterprises. He proved that labour and economic management had to be organised scientifically and that everything of value in the experience of the leading capitalist countries had to be used extensively in the USSR.
Lenin's treatment of the role of the market, trade and commodity-money relations in the building up of the socialist economy contributed powerfully towards the rise of the political economy of socialism. In 1921, on the basis of the initial experience of the Soviet state and, particularly, of the lessons to be drawn from the policy of war communism, Lenin demonstrated that it was necessary to go over to the New Economic Policy, and was the first to prove scientifically that the switch from capitalist to socialist economy could not be effected without making broad use of the market, trade and commodity-money relations, that socialism could not be built by administrative directives from the state power, solely on the revolutionary enthusiasm of the people, without giving the people material incentives in the results of their work. The market and trade, controlled by the state, had to be utilised to effect an economic alliance between the working class and the peasants, and strengthen the union between town and countryside, between large-scale state socialist industry and the small peasant economy. The market and trade had, moreover, to provide the link between state enterprises.
In works written during this period Lenin showed that it was necessary to learn to trade, that enterprises had to be run on the basis of cost accounting, that money played an extremely important role in the building of socialism, that __PRINTERS_P_81_COMMENT__ 6---2635 81 the Soviet ruble had to be strengthened, that credit and banks had to be promoted in every possible way and that there had to be a stable state budget.
The New Economic Policy signified the toleration of some private capital in trade and production and a struggle against it through economic competition.
In the development of the country's productive forces and in the drive against anarchy and spontaneity in the national economy, Lenin attached great importance to state capitalism, taking into account the fact that under the dictatorship of the proletariat this form of the economy was controlled by the workers' state.
A profound insight into the economy of the period of transition and into the processes taking place in it is given by Lenin's conclusion that the Soviet economy combines elements of five economic systems of which three---socialism, small-scale commodity production and private capitalist economy---would be predominant in the economy of any other country effecting the transition from capitalism to socialism. Lenin thereby devised the theoretical model of the economy of the period of transition. On its basis he unfolded society's class structure in the period of transition and showed the social nature and position occupied in society by each of the three classes: the working class, the peasantry and the bourgeoisie. He substantiated working-class policy towards the peasantry in the period of transition (reliance on the poor peasants, alliance with the middle peasants and struggle against the kulaks) and towards the bourgeoisie (struggle against it by different methods on the principle of ``who will win'').
Lenin's scientific elaboration of the specific ways and means of building up the economy in the USSR was founded on the Marxist teaching of the material prerequisites of socialism and on a sober account of the state of the economy in the country. He attached paramount importance to the rapid building of a modern large-scale industry with priority for heavy industry capable of reorganising the backward agriculture and ensuring the country's defence and political and economic independence. Underscoring the supreme importance of the role accorded to modern science and technology in the building of socialism and communism, Lenin attached special significance to electrification, to the wide use of electric power in production and everyday life.
82His teaching of the ways and means for the socialist reorganisation of agriculture is a conspicuous achievement of the economic theory of socialism and communism. He showed that state farms had to be organised on a nation-wide scale in order to enable the peasants to see the advantages of large-scale socialist farming over the small, scattered husbandries. With the postulates of Marx and Engels on the role played by co-operatives in the socialist reorganisation of the countryside as his point of departure, and taking into account the conditions created for the development of the peasant economy by the victory of the October Revolution and the adoption of NEP by the Party and the Government, Lenin proved that the attitude of the Bolsheviks to the cooperatives had to undergo a fundamental change. Under conditions where the basic means of production in the country were owned by the people, and the political power was in the hands of the working people themselves, the cooperatives were a socialist form of the economy and a milestone marking the transition of the peasant masses to socialism.
Lenin recognised the possibility and necessity for the peaceful coexistence of countries with different social systems and formulated the guidelines of the socialist state's economic relations with bourgeois countries: preservation and strengthening of the state monopoly of foreign trade, economic competition with capitalism, and so on. He enlarged on the Marxist teaching that economically backward countries could start the transition to socialism without going through the capitalist stage of development.
He enriched the economic theory of socialism and communism in an acute struggle with bourgeois and petty-- bourgeois economists, Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries, ``Left Communists'', the ``Workers' Opposition'',^^*^^ Trotskyites and Right opportunists.
His teaching of the ways, principles, forms and methods of building the economy of socialism underlie the decisions of the CPSU and the Soviet Government on economic questions. This teaching has played and continues to play an _-_-_
~^^*^^ ``Workers' Opposition"---an anti-Party, anarcho-syndicalist group that was formed in the RCP(B) in 1920. It demanded that the management of the entire national economy should be turned over to an `` All-Russia Congress of Producers'', thereby renouncing the leading role played by the Party and the Soviet Government in economic development.---Ed.
83 immense role in the practical work of building the economy of socialism and in socialist economic management in the USSR and other socialist countries.The CPSU and Soviet economists solicitously preserve the great ideological heritage left by Lenin, creatively developing it in conformity with the changing situation and with the new tasks of socialist construction.
Tremendous importance attaches to the fact that in the period of transition the Communist Party and Soviet economists upheld and further developed Lenin's theory that socialism can triumph first in one country, in the USSR, and his teaching that industrialisation and collectivisation were the basic means of building the economy of socialism. The decisions of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth conferences of the RCP(B) and the Fourteenth Congress of the CPSU(B), and speeches by Party leaders showed the theoretical untenability and pernicious character of the attempts made by Trotsky, backed by Zinoviev, Kamenev and other oppositionists, to steer the Party away from the Leninist road of socialist construction to the road of capitalist restoration. Like the Mensheviks, the Trotskyites maintained that the October Revolution was not a socialist revolution, that the character of the state enterprises and co-operatives in the USSR was not socialist, that it was not possible to form an alliance between the working class and the working peasantry and that socialism could not triumph in the USSR before socialist revolutions were consummated in other, more developed countries.
Lenin's theory that socialism could be built first in one country taken separately was consolidated in the struggle against the Trotskyites. Of tremendous importance was the fact that during the struggle against the Trotskyites it was found necessary to distinguish between two groups of contradictions confronting the working class in the building of socialism: internal contradictions, and external contradictions, i.e., contradictions between the USSR and the capitalist encirclement. It was proved that provided the Party's policy was correct the contradictions of the first group could be resolved by the working class itself and that, consequently, it was possible to achieve socialism in one country. On the other hand, the efforts of the working class of one country are inadequate for the settlement of the contradictions of the second group, and, therefore, the final triumph of 84 socialism---in the sense of a complete guarantee against intervention and the restoration of bourgeois practices---can only be achieved as a result of the concerted efforts of the proletarians of several countries and as a result of the victorious revolution in a number of other countries.
The ideological and political rout of Trotskyism ensured the possibility of successfully building socialism in the USSR and also the possibility and need for the further development of the political economy of socialism.
Lenin's theories and a strict account of the specific historical conditions and tasks in the country enabled the Party to chart the Soviet Union's socialist industrialisation in the decisions of its Fourteenth Congress, Fifteenth Conference, Fifteenth Congress and the joint plenary meeting of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission (1929), and also in other documents.
During the bitter struggle against bourgeois and pettybourgeois economists and against the Trotskyites and Right opportunists (Bukharin, Rykov and others) it was proved that a large-scale industry, primarily heavy industry, had to be built in the USSR without external assistance, by utilising the overwhelming advantages of the socialist economic system over the capitalist, and by strengthening the alliance of the working class with the working peasantry. In the decisions of the CPSU, socialist industrialisation was regarded as the only possible way of putting an end to the country's age-old economic backwardness, ensuring its defence and independence, and creating the material conditions for the socialist reorganisation of agriculture and for the triumph of socialism.
The Party's decisions on socialist industrialisation stressed not only that industry had to expand faster than agriculture with priority for the producion of the means of production (Group ``A'') over the output of consumer goods (Group ``B''), but that agricultural production and the output of consumer goods had to be systematically stepped up because their slow growth rates might hold up the growth of heavy industry and the rise of the people's standard of living.
The theory and practice of socialist industrialisation in the USSR have elements common to all countries that lack a powerful large-scale industry at the time the socialist revolution is started, and elements springing from the specific, 85 historical conditions of socialist construction in the USSR, conditions deriving chiefly from the fact that at the time the USSR was completely encircled by capitalist states and could get no financial assistance whatever from other countries. It would be wrong to consider all elements of socialist industrialisation in the USSR as inevitable in all countries lacking a heavy industry and starting to build socialism. The existence today of the world socialist system makes the task of socialist industrialisation considerably easier for other countries. The planned division of labour and co-operation between the industries of the different socialist countries substantially change the structure of the national economy as a whole and of its individual branches.
The elaboration of the Marxist agrarian theory by the Party and economists has greatly contributed towards substantiating the course steered by the CPSU(B) towards the socialist reorganisation of agriculture and towards the implementation of that reorganisation.
The decisions of the Fifteenth Congress, Sixteenth Conference, and CC plenary meetings, and also the works of economists specialising in agrarian problems upheld and developed Lenin's teaching about the ways, forms and methods of effecting the socialist transformation of the countryside. It was proved that the socialist reorganisation of agriculture was an indispensable condition for the triumph of socialism in the country and that, despite the assertions of Bukharin and other Right opportunists, the countryside would not achieve socialism by itself because the capitalist trend of development survived in the peasant economy during the period of transition. This trend had to be counterposed by the Party, the working class and the Government through the creation of the material, political and organisational prerequisites for the mass collectivisation of the peasantry: production of tractors and other farm machines, and the establishment of large numbers of the simplest type of co-operatives in which the peasants would learn to farm collectively and see the advantages of large-scale socialist agriculture over the small peasant husbandries. During the struggle against the Right opportunists it was proved that the producers' co-operative was the highest and most essential stage of collectivisation. The Soviet Union's experience of reorganising agriculture along socialist lines has shown that the collective farm is the basic form of socialist co-operation 86 in agriculture because it allows combining the interests of the individual peasant, the collective and society as a whole in the most effective manner.
The principles and forms of labour organisation and remuneration in the agricultural co-operative, theoretically substantiated by the Party and by economists, were embodied in the Model Rules of the Collective Farm, drawn up and approved in the early 1930s.
The theory of collectivisation, like that of socialist industrialisation, has become part of the ideological arsenal of the political economy of socialism.
During the period of transition the Party, naturally, devoted much of its attention to questions connected with fundamental changes of the social character of the country's economy and the branch structure of the national economy. The elaboration of the principles, forms and methods of socialist economic management was subordinated to the task of the socialist reorganisation of society and achieving the triumph of socialism.
The theoretical struggle over questions that might, at first glance, have seemed to be abstract, was in fact closely linked with the practical work of building socialism: the demarcation in the approach to the theoretical problems of the Soviet economy reflected, directly or indirectly, the political demarcation of the social forces working for and against socialism.
The acute class struggle during the period of transition was accompanied by extremely high political tension in economic science. Economic theories were a weapon in the struggle between classes.
After the October Revolution a united front against socialist construction was formed by bourgeois and petty-- bourgeois economists, Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries. Their political and theoretical platform and practical activities dovetailed with the stand adopted by the Trotskyites. Although the Right opportunists in the Party admitted the possibility of socialism triumphing in the USSR, their stand on concrete questions of socialist construction objectively aligned them with those who fought socialism and aimed at the restoration of capitalism in the country.
A sharp theoretical struggle raged over the regulator of Soviet society. The bourgeois and petty-bourgeois economists and the Mensheviks held that the Soviet economy was 87 only a variety of the capitalist economy and mechanically applied the laws of capitalism to it. They maintained that the Soviet economy was regulated by the law of value, which determines the proportions and distribution of the means of production and labour by branches. They opposed socialist industrialisation and the socialist reorganisation of agriculture with references to the objective law of value, and classified the socialist reorganisation of agriculture as subjective arbitrary rule contravening the ``natural'' course of economic development.
Y. Preobrazhensky, a Trotskyite, suggested a theory of ``two regulators'', according to which the law of value operates in the small-scale commodity and capitalist sectors of the Soviet economy, while the so-called ``law of initial socialist accumulation" operates in the state sector. Bukharin, leader of the Right opportunists, used the ``law of proportionate labour outlays'', earlier evolved by Bogdanov, as an ideological weapon. Bukharin asserted that the law of value was eternal as a distributor of labour by branches and that only its form of operation changed: in capitalist society it operates as a law determining prices; in the economy of the period of transition it ``sheds its coat''; and in socialist society it comes forward in its pure form.
Soviet economists showed that all these theories were untenable and politically harmful.
Lenin's theory that it is possible and necessary to combine the plan with the market, with the plan playing the guiding role, was upheld in the Party decisions and in the works of Soviet economists. During the period of transition there were two markets in the country: the state-co-operative and the private-capitalist market. The Party and the Government pursued a policy of ousting and then abolishing the second and promoting the steady growth of the first market. Planned economy presupposes the wide utilisation of the market and of commodity-money relations. The plan must take the market into account, facilitate and direct its growth, and curb the anarchic elements of its operation.
The basic problems of socialist reproduction, including the complex problem of the relationship between production, accumulation and consumption, a problem vital to practice, have been theoretically substantiated in Party decisions and in the works of Soviet economists. In the decisions of the Fifteenth Party Congress on the directives for the five-year 88 plan of economic development it is stated that in the relationship between production and consumption the point of departure should not be simultaneously maximum figures for both, because that would be an insoluble task, or the unilateral interests of accumulation for a given length of time, or the unilateral interests of consumption. ``Taking into consideration the relatively contradictory nature of these elements and their interaction and inter-relation, which from the standpoint of long-term development generally coincide, the best combination of these two elements must be used as the point of departure.''^^*^^
In works written during the period of transition considerable attention is given to the quest for optimal growth rates and proportions of the various branches of the national economy, and to the ways and means of enhancing the efficacy of investments and improving economic planning.
In the 1920s many Soviet economists were inclined to negate the political economy of socialism. Naturally, this hindered the moulding of the political economy of socialism into a theoretical system as a special section of MarxistLeninist political economy in the broadest meaning of the word. They mistakenly believed that the objective economic laws, whose study is the subject of political economy, exist only in a spontaneously developing economy founded on private ownership of the means of production and enmeshed in commodity fetishism. They argued that under the domination of public ownership of the means of production, objective laws and commodity fetishism would disappear and there would be, therefore, no place for political economy as a theoretical science. The period of society's transition from capitalism to socialism was regarded as a period of the final disappearance of objective economic laws, as a period of gradual transition to a society without economic laws and without the science of political economy. The idealistic neoKantian idea that an objective law is incompatible with a consciously set objective served as the philosophical basis for the negation of political economy.
Marx noted that from the scientific aspect the political economy of capitalism does not begin only where as such it is mooted. The same may be said about the political economy of socialism. It arose and developed many years _-_-_
~^^*^^ The CPSU in Resolutions. .., Part II, Russ. ed., p. 453.
89 before the majority of Soviet economists recognised the very possibility and necessity for its existence.A debate on the historical boundaries of political economy was held at the Communist Academy in 1925. The report was delivered by I. I. Skvortsov-Stepanov who denounced the then prevailing opinion that the province of political economy was limited to anarchic commodity-capitalist economy. Referring to the writings on this question by Marx, Engels and Lenin and to their method of investigation, Skvortsov-Stepanov showed that political economy was an historical science and that to limit it to commodity-capitalist economy would contradict Marxism and undermine the revolutionary reorganisation of the world. Skvortsov-- Stepanov's correct and far-reaching stand on this issue was supported by only two of the speakers---A. A. Bogdanov and M. N. Pokrovsky. The other twelve speakers, among them N. I. Bukharin, Y. A. Preobrazhensky, V. V. Osinsky and L. Kritzman, rejected his arguments.
The decisive blow at the concept negating political economy under socialism was struck through the publication in 1929 of the remarks written by Lenin in 1920 apropos of Bukharin's book The Economy of the Period of Transition. In these remarks Lenin expressed his disagreement with Bukharin's assertion that political economy sinks into oblivion together with capitalism. He recalled Engels's statements in Anti-Diihring on political economy and pointed out that economic laws would operate under communism as well, for example, the law of the relationship of v+ml to ell and the law of accumulation.
The publication of Lenin's Remarks put an end to the erroneous negation by Soviet economists of the political economy of socialism and stimulated the elaboration of methodological questions and the formation of political economy as a new branch of Marxist-Leninist science.
In the 1920s there was in the USSR a long and heated discussion of the method and subject of political economy: the relations of production and the productive forces, the link between production and circulation, the correlation between the logical and the historical in Marxist political economy, and other problems.
This discussion helped Soviet economists to find correct solutions to many methodological problems of the political economy of socialism. Further contributions were made by 90 other discussions in the 1920s on specific problems of theory, for instance, socially necessary work and the source of differential rent.
To sum up, it may be said that towards the end of the period of transition, when history's first-ever economy of socialism was created in the USSR, there took shape a timetested science of the ways, forms and methods of building the economy of socialism, a science of the principles, forms and methods of socialist economic management.
__*_*_*__With the triumph of socialism the conditions for the development of political economy and its practical tasks changed considerably in the USSR. When the extremely difficult task of reorganising society along socialist lines was completed, prominence was acquired by the task of strengthening the socialist system, improving the management of the economy and ensuring the full and most efficient utilisation of the tremendous potentialities and advantages of the socialist economic system. This required the further development of political economy, whose existence and indispensability were no longer questioned.
New problems were tackled in the second half of the 1930s. These included public ownership and its forms; the fundamental indications of the socialist economic system; the class structure of socialist society; the nature of classes and social groups, their position in society and their inter-- relation; economic contradictions under socialism and the ways and means of eradicating them; the economic role and functions of the state under socialism. Economists discussed the balance pattern of the Soviet national economy, which concretely showed the great importance of the Marxist theory of reproduction to the political economy of socialism and the practice of socialist planning.
The task set by the Eighteenth Party Congress of overtaking and outstripping the most highly developed capitalist countries in per capita output made it imperative for economists to study concrete ways of carrying out this task and the significance of its implementation for the economic competition between socialism and capitalism and for the Soviet Union's gradual transition from socialism to communism.
91The total abolition of exploitation and of the exploiting classes in the USSR and the reorganisation of the pettybourgeois peasant economy into a socialist economy demolished the material foundation for the existence and development of these classes in the USSR and for their ideology.
Today, with the triumph of socialism, the political economy of socialism, which emerged in the period of transition and developed in an extremely acute struggle with antisocialist economic trends in the Soviet Union and abroad, continues the struggle against bourgeois economists, revisionists and opportunists in foreign countries, who distort and vilify the socialist economic system and slander the Soviet Union.
In socialist society the central task of economic science is to give a theoretical interpretation and substantiation of the ways and means of improving socialist economic management and planning. Here it is of paramount importance to bring to light the objective principles of socialist economic management and the economic laws of socialism. The establishment of the objective nature of the economic laws of socialism and the elucidation of individual economic laws of socialism and a system of these laws are the major achievement of Soviet economic science in the 1940--1950s. But, first, economists had to recognise that the objective law of value operates under socialism and that under socialism there exist the commodity-money form of production and commoditymoney relations linked with the law of value.
Marx and Engels believed that commodity-money relations and the law of value would disappear under socialism and that the labour outlay would be calculated directly in units of working time. The economy would be planned, and in drawing up the plan society would consider the utility of various products and the labour outlay involved in their manufacture.
Lenin propounded the same view in works written before the October Revolution. But experience showed that the market and commodity-money relations had to be preserved also in socialist society. In connection with the switch to the New Economic Policy Lenin showed that it was necessary to make broad use of the market, trade and commodity-money relations for the building of socialism.
In one way or another the operation of the law of value in the economy of the period of transition was recognised 92 by all Soviet economists in the 1920s. But most of them expected that under socialism the law of value and commodity-money relations would disappear and that there would be a natural economy. Most of the economists who at the time maintained that the law of value and commodity-- money relations would unavoidably be preserved under socialism, belonged to a school which perpetuated the law of value, regarding it as inevitable under any socio-economic system.
At the close of the 1920s and in the early 1930s some Soviet economists declared that trade and the market were a stage that had been passed, that now it was necessary to go over to direct products-exchange, and that since money had turned into settlement notes it would soon be abolished. In the CC report to the Seventeenth Congress of the CPSU(B) the assertion that money and trade were withering away was qualified as ``Leftist prattle" highly dangerous to the building of socialism. At the Congress it was declared that money would remain for a long time to come, while the Congress decision on the second five-year plan of economic development (1933--1937) stressed that the Soviet ruble had to be further strengthened as a major lever of cost accounting and consolidating the economic ties between town and countryside.
But after this the recognition that there had to be trade, money and cost accounting under socialism was not linked with the operation of the law of value. Economists usually regarded commodities, money, price, profit and other money categories as instruments of the bourgeois economy alien to socialism, as forms of accounting temporarily brought into the service of socialism and subject to more or less early eradication. This negation of the operation of the law of value under socialism and of the real content of commoditymoney relations was, in effect, a specific conclusion drawn from the assertion that there would generally be no objective economic laws under socialism. In his marginal notes in Bukharin's book Lenin wrote that economic laws and political economy, which studies them, would exist also under communism. These notes were interpreted subjectivistically: it was asserted that the economic laws operating under socialism were the creation of the socialist state. ``The laws governing the development of the socialist economy are created by the socialist state of workers and peasants-----These 93 laws are created and modified by the socialist state headed by the Communist Party,'' it was stated in 1937 in the journal Bolshevik (No. 1, p. 24). This interpretation of economic laws served as the basis for subjectivistic decisions and voluntarism in the management of the national economy under the personality cult.
The negation of the operation of the law of value under socialism and the subjectivistic interpretation of economic laws were to be ended with the compilation---on the initiative and under the direction of the CC CPSU---of a new textbook on political economy, in which the task was set (for the first time) of expounding political economy in the broad sense of the word, and systematising the science of the socialist mode of production and marking it out as an independent department of political economy. When the mock-up of this textbook was discussed in the CC CPSU in January 1941 the view, widespread among economists and reflected in the textbook, that the law of value did not operate under socialism was recognised as wrong, for it clashed with the existence in the USSR of trade, money, prices, wages, profit, rent and cost accounting, which were playing an immense role in the country's economic life and were evidence of the operation of the law of value under socialism. It was stressed that the negation of this law was harming economic life in the USSR: causing serious shortcomings in price-formation, underestimation of the role of material incentives in socialist production, and so forth.
The outbreak of the Great Patriotic War diverted economists from the compilation of this textbook, and the work was resumed only after the war. The few papers on political economy published during the war offered extensive proof to substantiate the proposition that the economic laws of socialism were of an objective nature and that the law of value operated under socialism but had a different social content as compared with commodity-capitalist production.
While the textbook was in the process of compilation much was done to elaborate methodological questions of the political economy of socialism, to define the boundaries of that science and its relation to branch and special economic sciences, to elucidate the link between logical and historical methods in this science, and so on. The mock-up of the textbook was closely scrutinised at an economic discussion organised in 1951 on the initiative and under the leadership 94 of the CC CPSU. As a result of this discussion, a more profound understanding was gained of the basic aspects of the political economy of socialism and full recognition was accorded to the objective character of the economic laws of socialism, the operation of the law of value and the need for utilising the market and commodity-money relations, which acquire a character of their own under socialism.
This was a considerable advance in the development of the political economy of socialism and ensured a firm foundation for considerable improvement of socialist economic management and for the evolution of political economy as a science and an academic discipline.
After its final elaboration in the light of the 1951 discussion, the textbook was published in 1954 and was widely disseminated in the USSR and abroad. It was the first textbook to interpret the economic laws of socialism as being of an objective nature and make an attempt to lay bare the system of these laws and show their internal relationship, the mechanism of their operation and their role in the practice of socialist economic management. In the CC report to the Twentieth' Congress of the CPSU the publication of this textbook was assessed as a major development in the Party's ideological life.
In the 1950s and 1960s the problem of the objective laws of socialism held the attention of economists and was debated at scientific institutions and in the press. Much of the debate was over the problem of the operation of the law of value under socialism. It was agreed that under socialism commodities and money were not a simple form alien to socialist production but expressed essential elements of the socialist economy: the social heterogeneity of labour, the objective need for material incentives, and remuneration for labour expended on production. It was proved that it was wrong to limit the operation of the law of value under socialism solely to collective-farm production and the manufacture of consumer goods at state-run enterprises, because it operated also in the state sector of the socialist economy, in the production of the means of production.
Under socialism the law of value, as other economic laws, operates under conditions where public ownership of the means of production predominates. Consciously, by planning the entire national economy, society uses the regulating inlluence of the law of value but, as distinct from anarchic 95 commodity-capitalist economy, under socialism this law is not the principal regulator of economic development.
The political economy of socialism received more scope for development after the Second World War when a number of other countries adopted the socialist road and the world socialist system came into being. The Communist and Workers' Parties and economists of these countries joined in tackling its problems. On the basis of their own experience and the experience of other countries they enrich the political economy of socialism with new conclusions. The possibility arose of verifying in practice and further enriching Lenin's propositions on the identity of the basic features and diversity of the specific forms of socialist construction in different countries.
From what was mostly a descriptive approach to the specific process of socialist reorganisation in individual countries, an approach typical of the initial post-war years, Soviet and other economists gradually went over to a profound theoretical analysis of this process, to a study of the operation of economic laws in the world socialist system as a whole, to elaborating the principles, forms and methods of employing these laws in order to establish, consolidate and promote the division of labour, co-operation and other forms of collaboration and mutual assistance between socialist countries. The theoretical elaboration of these problems is now an important sphere of the political economy of socialism.
The Twenty-First Congress of the CPSU placed on record the fact that socialism had triumphed finally and completely in the USSR and that the country had entered a new period of historical development---the period of communist construction. Life set the Party and economists new tasks, and the theoretical elaboration of these tasks considerably enriched the political economy of socialism. Questions relating to the laws governing society's transition from socialism to communism were given prominence in the decisions of the Twenty-First and Twenty-Second congresses of the CPSU and in the works of Soviet economists in the 1950s and 1960s.
The Marxist-Leninist teaching of the two phases of communist society and on the ways and means of transition from the economy of socialism to the economy of communism was further developed in these decisions and works. The question of communism and the laws of transition from socialism to 96 communism have now been raised by the CPSU to the level of a practical issue of paramount importance, to the level of a theoretical substantiation of immediate practical tasks.
In line with the Marxist-Leninist conclusion that the development of the productive forces is the decisive element of social progress, the CPSU set as its cardinal objective the building of the material and technical basis of communism in the USSR. The theoretical foundation for the principal guidelines in the building of communism, for the ways and means of building the material and technical basis of communism, and for the ways and means of securing the gradual evolution of socialist relations of production into communist relations of production has been laid in Party decisions and in the works of Soviet economists. Soviet economists have begun to examine the objective laws of socialism from a new aspect, namely, the role played by each of these laws in society's real advance towards communism.
The Party Programme, adopted by the Twenty-Second Congress of the CPSU, plays an immense part in furthering all the social sciences, including the political economy of socialism. It accords prominence to questions of economic theory, summing up and reflecting the achievements of economic science in the USSR and other countries. It gives expression to the extensive experience of the entire world working-class, communist and national liberation movements, the experience of socialist construction in all the countries that have taken the road to socialism and the experience of communist construction in the USSR, and formulates the laws governing the building of socialism and communism.
An important element of the development of economic science in the USSR is the increasing application of mathematical methods to economic research and to planning the national economy. The balance sheet of the Soviet national economy for 1923--1924 showing the relationship between the various branches was published in the USSR in the 1920s. A method of linear programming, which is playing a large part in planning economic development, was evolved in the USSR at the close of the 1930s. In the Soviet Union mathematical methods became widespread in economic research and practice much later than in the capitalist countries---in the 1950s. Previously, many Soviet economists had distrusted and even scorned these methods. The reason for this was that bourgeois political economy frequently sought (as it __PRINTERS_P_97_COMMENT__ 7---2635 97 continues to do to this day) to screen the poverty and apologetic role of its doctrines with mathematical formulas and thereby give them a semblance of being scientific, while in many cases the scientific value of the researches conducted by bourgeois economists with the aid of mathematical methods was diminished or reduced to nought because these economists approached fundamental issues of theory from the standpoint of vulgar political economy.
Soviet economists, evidently, can successfully apply mathematical methods only on the principled foundation of Marxist-Leninist political economy, which recognises the objective nature of the economic laws of society and the labour theory of value. However, this does not mean that they adopt a negative attitude to all the results of the application of mathematical methods by bourgeois economists. In many problems the experience gained by bourgeois economists can and must be utilised in the USSR with due consideration, of course, for the features distinguishing the Soviet economy from the capitalist.
The promotion of fruitful application of mathematical methods in the USSR and other socialist countries requires the further enrichment of the political economy of socialism, a considerable intensification of the quantitative analysis of the phenomena and processes of economic life and the elevation of this analysis to a level where the conclusions of political economy can be translated into the language of algorithms and used successfully with the aid of mathematical formulas and electronic computers.
The Soviet Union and some other socialist countries are at present carrying out a far-reaching reform in economic planning and management. In the USSR the reform was launched by the decisions adopted by plenary meetings of the CC CPSU in March and September 1965 and endorsed by the Twenty-Third Congress of the CPSU. The purpose of this reform is to create the conditions for a steep rise of the efficiency of socialist production in order to allow for the utmost utilisation of the tremendous potentialities and advantages of the socialist economic system. The aim is to give priority to economic methods of management over administrative methods, enhance the role of the market in the mechanism of economic management and provide greater economic incentives for factories and for individual workers.
The direct link between the achievements in the 98 development of the political economy of socialism, particularly over the past few years, and the tasks of the economic reform is self-evident. Economists are actively helping the Party to effect the reform, one of whose aims is to give economic planning a sounder scientific foundation and enable economic management to rely on the objective economic laws of socialism and thereby rid it of manifestations of subjectivism and voluntarism. To some extent, the preparations for and the enforcement of the reform are an indication of the considerable maturity attained by the political economy of socialism and of the enhanced role it is playing in the implementation of the practical tasks of socialist and communist construction. However, in the development of this science there are serious shortcomings---incomplete theoretical elaboration of many cardinal questions: criteria and indices of the efficiency of socialist production, optimal planning, rates of growth and proportions in the national economy, and so forth. It has been found that there are many pressing problems which have been studied inadequately by scientists or not dealt with at all. These include the planning of prices, the purchasing power of the population, the market situation and long-term forecasting of the country's economic development.
These and many other problems of economic management can only be solved, evidently, if the approach to them rests on all the achievements of the political economy of socialism, chiefly on the recognition of the objective economic laws of socialism, including the law of value, and on the recognition of the labour theory of value. The overwhelming majority of Soviet economists now agree that this is the only theoretical, principled foundation on which the current problems of the Soviet economy may be resolved.
The task of improving socialist economic management lies through further study of general methodological problems of the political economy of socialism, for instance, the correlation between objective and subjective principles in economic life, the relationship between the state and socialist relations of production, and so forth. The renunciation of the subjectivistic assertion that the economic laws of socialism are created by the workers' and peasants' state itself was an important step towards understanding the relationship between the economy and economic policy under socialism and gave a boost to the practice of socialist economic __PRINTERS_P_99_COMMENT__ 7* 99 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1971/DRTC378/20070608/199.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2007.06.08) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [*]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ management. Under socialism, however, objective laws do not operate blindly, behind the backs of the producers. On the contrary, they are used by society consciously, through the corresponding activity of the state in planning and managing the national economy and through the conscious work of socialist enterprises and their personnel. The efficiency of socialist economic management is facilitated enormously by the fact that the Party, the state bodies and the heads of enterprises understand how the economic laws of socialism operate, by the finding of the most rational ways of utilising these laws in the given span of time, and by the conscious application of objective laws. Lenin held that one of the merits of Marxism is that it recognises the law-governed, objective nature of the process of social life and, at the same time, accords a prominent role to the conscious activity of classes and individuals in this process.
The political economy of socialism emerged and is developing in the process of the emergence and development of the practice of the economic building of socialism and communism. In the period since the Great October Socialist Revolution the political economy of socialism has reached a high level of development as a result of the theoretical work of the CPSU and Soviet economists and, after the Second World War, also as a result of the work of the Communist and Workers' Parties and economists of other socialist countries. It provides the scientific foundation for the economic policy pursued by the Communist and Workers' Parties and governments of the socialist countries. Today the socialist countries have launched important measures to improve the leadership of the national economy and economic management as a whole. This is posing the political economy of socialism new problems that require an urgent solution.
Lofty principles and fidelity to the great, eternally living and constantly developing teaching of Marxism-Leninism has been and will go on being the guarantee of successful work by economists.
[100] __ALPHA_LVL1__ BASIC TRENDSL. A. Leonlyev
__NOTE__ Author(s) is (are) above LVL in original.Twentieth-century capitalism is characterised by complex economic processes, socio-class relations and forms of political life. The far-reaching revolutionary processes of the modern epoch---the rise and growth of the world socialist system and the downfall of colonialism as a result of national liberation revolutions---have made an indelible imprint on all aspects of life in the capitalist countries.
A reliable compass is needed to guide us through the maze of contradictory trends and facts determining the changes that have taken place in the capitalist world during the past few decades. That compass is Lenin's theory of imperialism, which, like Marxist-Leninist science as a whole, is being systematically enriched with new theoretical generalisations and principled conclusions in the historical documents adopted by the international communist movement, the CPSU and fraternal Communist Parties.
One of these documents is the Programme of the CPSU, which gives a comprehensive picture of the present epoch as a whole, and of the trends of development of modern imperialism, in particular.
The economic and political substance of imperialism as the highest and last stage of capitalism was revealed by Lenin, who laid bare the insoluble contradictions and incurable ulcers of imperialism and showed the conditions under which it would inevitably perish. On the basis of his analysis of imperialism he evolved the theory of socialist revolution and the teaching that socialism can triumph 101 initially in one capitalist country taken separately. This theory was the guide to action in the greatest social battles in history: the Great October Revolution in Russia, and the victorious socialist revolutions in a number of other countries after the Second World War.
Lenin's theory of imperialism, enriched with new conclusions drawn on the basis of the experience of world development and recorded in historical documents of the international communist movement, the CPSU and fraternal Marxist-Leninist Parties, gives the working class and all other progressive forces a knowledge of the essence of modern capitalism, and of the laws of its development and collapse. It gives the key to understanding the entire depth of the economic and political contradictions rending bourgeois society at its last stage of development and shows the real content of the ideological subterfuges that the dying ruling class uses to mask its doom.
Momentous changes have taken place in the life of mankind during the past half-century. The victory of the socialist revolution in Russia and then in a number of other countries has drastically reduced the sphere of imperialist domination. The disintegration of the colonial system was an irreparable loss to world imperialism. The development of the world revolutionary process is thus causing imperialism to lose more and more of its positions.
Where in world history can one find a more complete confirmation of a scientific prevision like the victory of the socialist revolution which was substantiated by Marx in his analysis of the general laws of capitalist development and by Lenin in his theory of imperialism? This is also the case with the second most important irreversible process of modern times---the eradication of colonialism. Lenin's analysis of imperialism showed that the colonial system, a fungus of imperialism, took shape and grew as the inevitable consequence of the foundations of capitalism. Hence the conclusion that the social revolution constitutes an epoch in which the struggle for socialism waged by the proletariat of the capitalist countries merges with the national liberation movement on the vast outskirts of the capitalist world.
The radical change of the political climate in the world is so obvious that it cannot be denied by the ruling camp in the capitalist countries. For example, Harold Macmillan, a former Conservative Prime Minister of Great Britain, 102 declared that ``a wind of change" was blowing in the world. From time to time United States politicians speak of the ``revolutionary processes" in the modern world. But the politicians and ideologists of the outworn system would, naturally, have not been true to themselves if they saw the real essence of these changes and processes. MarxismLeninism, the world outlook of the working class, is the only ideology that allows people to see the true character of the developments and phenomena of the present epoch in all their complexity and aspects.
The colossal changes that have taken place in the modern world have fully borne out trends of development of capitalism as a whole, and of the monopoly stage of capitalism in particular, as revealed by Marxism-Leninism. Under the impact of the changes in the international situation there have been momentous changes also in the internal life of the capitalist countries, in their economic and political structure. An analysis of these changes leaves no room for doubt that they are due, on the one hand, to the influence of the current far-reaching revolutionary processes and, on the other, to the operation of the internal laws governing the development of imperialism.
In its historical decisions, the CPSU, guided by Lenin's tenets, systematically explained the enormous influence that the victorious building of socialism in the Soviet Union exercises on the course of world development.
The Sixteenth Congress of the CPSU(B) placed on record the fact that along with the economic crisis in the capitalist countries the economic achievements of socialism in the USSR show ``the broad masses of the world the entire depth of the main contradiction---the contradiction between the country building socialism and the capitalist system, which is being increasingly shattered by the crisis''.^^*^^
Vast historical experience is summed up in the concluding section of the CPSU Programme that our ``epoch, whose main content is the transition from capitalism to socialism, is an epoch of struggle between two opposing social systems, an epoch of socialist and national liberation revolutions, of the breakdown of imperialism and the abolition of the colonial system, an epoch of the transition of more and more peoples to the socialist path, of the triumph of _-_-_
~^^*^^ The CPSU in Resolutions. . ., Vol. Ill, Russ. ed., p. 33.
103 socialism and communism on a world-wide scale. The central factor of the present epoch is the international working class and its main creation, the world socialist system''.^^*^^ This conclusion was enlarged on in the documents adopted by the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in Moscow. The Main Document of this Meeting sums up the major changes that have taken place in the world during the past few decades and offers the well-argumented conclusion that the main trend of world development continues to be determined by the forces of revolution and socialism, of peace and the national liberation movement, analyzes the strategic plans and tactical methods of modern imperialism and its chief contingents and outlines the future course of the struggle against the aggressive actions and perfidious designs of imperialism. ``The present phase,'' it is stated in the Main Document, ``is characterised by growing possibilities for a further advance of the revolutionary and progressive forces. At the same time, the dangers brought about by imperialism, by its policy of aggression, are growing. Imperialism, whose general crisis is deepening, continues to oppress many peoples and remains a constant threat to peace and social progress.''^^**^^The Address ``Centenary of the Birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin'', adopted by the Meeting, reaffirms the international significance of Leninism as an integral teaching of the revolutionary working class of the whole world. `` Marxist-Leninist theory and its creative application in specific conditions,'' the Address states, ``permit scientific answers to be found to the questions facing all contingents of the world revolutionary movement, wherever they are active.''^^***^^
The analysis of the present-day policies of imperialism, made by the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, forum of the Communists of all continents, gave further striking confirmation of the fact that Lenin's theory of imperialism, creatively developed by MarxistsLeninists, arms the working class and all other progressive forces with an accurate knowledge of the substance of _-_-_
~^^*^^ The Road to Communism, p. 449.
~^^**^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 11.
~^^***^^ Ibid., p. 41.
104 modern capitalism and of the laws of its development and downfall.``The social substance of imperialism and its place in history,'' L. I. Brezhnev, General Secretary of the CC CPSU, said at the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, ``are clear to us Communists. However, to chart a concrete programme of anti-imperialist struggle it is not enough to have a correct understanding of the essence and nature of imperialism. It is also necessary to make a close analysis of the new phenomena and deep-going processes taking place in the' capitalist world. The Leninist theory of imperialism provides the key to an understanding of the specific features distinguishing imperialism at its present stage of development.''^^*^^
To elucidate these specific features on the basis of Lenin's theory of imperialism is one of the principal tasks of the creative development of Marxism-Leninism. This task is being successfully discharged through the concerted efforts of the Marxist-Leninist Parties, of their leading organs and scientific cadres. A concrete assessment of the correlation and alignment of the socio-class forces in the world was given by the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties.
US imperialism, whose aggressiveness mounts with every new setback to its global strategy, remains the main adversary of peace, democracy and socialism and the principal enemy of freedom- and peace-loving nations, while West German imperialism is the central source of the threat of war in Europe. The aggressive strategy of imperialism is spearheaded chiefly against the socialist countries, against the world socialist system, which is the granite mainstay of the anti-imperialist camp, of all progressive and revolutionary forces in the world. The world socialist system has been and remains the decisive force in the anti-imperialist struggle. The achievements of the Soviet people and of the peoples of the fraternal countries in the building of socialism and communism and the growth of the political, economic and military might of the socialist community strengthen the forces of peace, democracy and socialism and are the guarantee of further victories in the struggle against imperialism.
_-_-_~^^*^^ Ibid., p. 141.
105Historical development has fully borne out Lenin's conclusion that the concentration of production and the emergence of capitalist monopolies on that basis underlie the transition to imperialism, the last stage of capitalism. All the main features of modern capitalism have converged in the rule of the monopolies, which play the decisive part in the economic and political life of capitalist countries. Having concentrated the bulk of social production in their hands, the mammoth monopolies dominate the life of the nation, states the Programme of the CPSU.
The dialectics of the historical process is such that having come into being out of the concentration of production and having achieved a definite, high level, the monopolies become in their turn powerful accelerators of the further concentration of production.
As a result, monopoly concentration of production proceeds on a new foundation. Formerly, the agreements between capitalists (cartels) on prices and markets served as the prelude to the appearance of monopoly associations (trusts and concerns). As a result of further development these agreements and compacts are reached between the monopoly giants not as a prerequisite but as the outcome of their domination.
The concentration of production, studied by Lenin on the basis of factual .material of the close of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, proceeded swiftly in the subsequent decades. Even the criterion of large-scale production has undergone a change. At the turn of the century, for instance, German statistics regarded as large enterprises those employing over 50 workers, while according to United States statistics of that period, large enterprises were those whose output topped one million dollars. Present-day data on the concentration of production speak of enterprises employing not 50 but 500, 1,000 and more workers and having an output valued not at one million but at tens and hundreds of millions of dollars, pounds, marks, etc. Large enterprises employing 1,000 or more workers comprise an insignificant part of the total number of enterprises---one or two per cent. But they employ: in the USA---nearly 30 per cent of the office and factory workers of the manufacturing industry; in Britain---34.5 per cent; in West Germany---41 106 per cent. A similar situation obtains in other developed capitalist countries.
Statistics on the concentration of production show that this process is taking place in all capitalist countries and is leading to a steadily higher level of concentration. However, the data on the concentration of production at industrial enterprises do not give a full picture of its real scale. Concentration taking place on the basis of monopoly rule has noteworthy features of its own. As long as free competition reigned the capitalist concerns (individual and joint-stock companies) usually owned one enterprise (production unit) and only a few of the largest companies operated several factories. The situation changed fundamentally with the formation and growth of monopolies. Today only small and medium companies have one production unit each. The large concerns, which play the decisive role in industry, operate many---frequently tens and even hundreds of enterprises---production units of various kinds. With the passage of time we observe an increase both of the number of concerns owning several enterprises and of production units operated by these concerns.
The monopoly giants incorporate not only large production units with a large number of workers and a large volume of output. Many of them set up relatively small enterprises that assemble ready-made articles, produce certain machine parts or are used for experimental and ancillary purposes. The net result is that industrial statistics giving enterprises as production units convey an understated impression of the real scale on which production is concentrated in capitalist industry.
Large concerns have many production units for various reasons. The main reason is that the huge growth of the scale of production makes it technically impossible to concentrate it in one or a few enterprises. The United States Steel Corporation, for example, produces more steel than Britain or only a little less than West Germany or Japan. A result of the enormous scale of production by the modern monopolies is that frequently their enterprises are scattered in tens of countries. Unilever, the British-Dutch concern, has close to 600 branches in 64 countries.
The large modern concerns are production complexes embracing an intricate system of interrelated production processes. The scale of production is dictated by far-- 107 reaching specialisation. Scientific and technological progress is leading to an increasingly more distinct division of labour. For instance, in the chemical concerns some enterprises specialise in the production of artificial fibres, others in the production of fertilisers, still others in pharmaceutical products, and so on. In the automobile industry some concerns manufacture various brands of cars, while individual enterprises specialise in the production of various automobile parts---chassis, engines, electrical equipment, and so forth.
One of the key incentives for the organisation of many enterprises by one concern or another is competition, the ambition to monopolise the output of various commodities on a nation-wide scale and then on the scale of a group of countries. Parallel with this, definite maximum sizes of enterprises are dictated by considerations of a production and technological nature. Of immense importance to many industries is the proximity of the market and raw material resources. For example, many United States food industry corporations prefer to build several enterprises in various countries in order to avoid long-distance transportation and long storage of their products. Canning industry concerns build their enterprises in regions that have their own raw material resources. Deconcentration of production is frequently dictated by strategic considerations and by the striving to undermine the resistance of the working class. For this purpose the United States corporations build enterprises far from the large cities and also in the southern states where cheap labour is available.
Combined industries have become very widespread during the past half-century. Another form of concentration that has become common is known as the diversification of production, which means that a given concern engages in the manufacture of a large range of commodities. Diversification embraces not only allied but also other, most varied kinds of output. For example, enterprises manufacturing details or parts of details go over to the manufacture of such details for various ready-made articles; in other cases, enterprises manufacturing finished products enlarge the assortment of their products.
Combination and diversification are forms of production concentration. With their love of formal attributes, bourgeois economists call combination vertical and diversification 108 horizontal types of concentration or call the first process integration, and the second differentiated production.
Diversification springs from the same reason as combination---the desire to maintain and then increase the high rate of income. Combination and diversification take place simultaneously. However, diversification bears the stamp of the specific conditions obtaining in modern capitalism, particularly in connection with technological progress and the growth of production specialisation.
Under diversification the large firms go over to the manufacture of various commodities, frequently unconnected by the production process. Through diversification the monopolies penetrate a number of branches, chiefly new fields of production. The organisation of such production enables them to make broad use of capital and also of the reserves of production capacities, manpower, engineering and managerial staffs and also trade and credit. In this way they reduce the risk linked with the growth of production specialisation, increase the profitability of large-scale production, and gain still more advantages over small and medium companies.
Under conditions where the market for a given product is unstable, diversification provides the company concerned with the possibility of quickly expanding the output of other commodities when the demand for some commodities drops. Diversification is engaged in chiefly by the biggest monopolies that have a huge capital, and it serves as an important means for further strengthening their position.
After the Second World War combined and particularly diversified production has been promoted on a huge scale as a result of the veritable epidemic of mergers and the absorption of some firms by other, bigger firms. Waves of mergers and absorptions have swept all the highly developed capitalist countries, everywhere giving rise to unprecedented concentration of production and monopolisation of the economy, to the formation of super-giants of monopoly capital, which embrace not one but several branches, not one but several countries. Multi-branch monopoly on an international scale is increasingly becoming the leading form of monopoly capital rule.
Being the result of the unremitting struggle between the monopolies, merging and absorption in their turn lead to a further aggravation of this struggle. Insofar as in many 109 countries mergers give rise to huge monopolies operating on a global scale, the struggle between them likewise acquires an international character, which complicates the world situation, injecting into it elements deriving from the monopoly pursuit of superprofits, from the expansion of the economic and political influence of the international octopuses.
The concentration of production is linked with the concentration and centralisation of capital. The separation of the ownership of capital from the investment of capital in production is generally intrinsic to capitalism. At the monopoly stage of capitalism this separation, Lenin pointed out, reaches vast proportions.^^*^^
From this derives the intricate nature of the interrelation and interdependence between the concentration of production and the concentration and centralisation of capital. Both these processes develop in the same direction and one stimulates and accelerates the other. At the same time, each of these processes has its own features and specific forms of movement. Underlying this specific of the monopoly stage of capitalism is the rapidly progressing separation of property from capital as a function, i.e., the separation of ownership of capital from its investment in production. Joint-stock enterprises are the most universal and allembracing form of this separation. The broad spread of this form of enterprises served as a major prerequisite for the concentration of production and was, at the same time, a powerful lever for the centralisation of capital.
The separation of the ownership of capital from the investment of capital in production most strikingly demonstrates the parasitic nature of capitalist ownership, which is the foundation of the exploitation of labour by capital. This Marxist conclusion is vividly confirmed by presentday development. The parasitic nature of capitalist ownership is more and more distinctly laid bare in the decisions of the CPSU and in the scientific researches of Marxist economists. ``The monopoly bourgeoisie,'' states the Programme of the CPSU, ``is a useless growth on the social organism, one unneeded in production. The industries are run by hired managers, engineers and technicians. The monopolists lead a parasitical life and with their menials _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 238.
110 consume a substantial portion of the national income created by the toil of proletarians and peasants.''^^*^^This conclusion is of immense importance to the militant proletariat of the capitalist countries. By fighting the monopolies the working class safeguards the interests of social progress against the monopoly bourgeoisie, which has become an internally dead, parasitic class.
In all the leading capitalist countries the concentration of production and capital has led to a rapid growth of large and giant enterprises, compared with which the hundreds of thousands of small enterprises play an insignificant role.
In the United States 500 of the largest companies today account for more than half of the total output of that country's manufacturing industry. In Britain 180 giant companies, whose enterprises employ one-third of the industrial workers, produce roughly two-fifths of the total industrial output.
The unparalleled scale of concentration, particularly in the form of mergers and absorption, has led in Britain to the formation of super-giants, concerns of a magnitude unheard of in the economy of that country.
Present-day reality fully bears out Lenin's conclusion that monopoly capitalism is a kind of superstructure over the old capitalism, that it is founded on pre-monopolist and even on pre-capitalist forms of the economy. In the capitalist part of the world'taken as a whole the monopoly pyramid towers on a vast foundation of non-monopolised, largely small-scale production, particularly in the economy of the less developed countries.
The combination of monopolies with exchange, the market and competition is essential to imperialism. Having emerged out of free competition, the monopolies do not eradicate it. Instead, they exist over and beside it, engendering a series of particularly acute contradictions, frictions and conflicts. An essential feature of imperialism is that it rests not on monopolies pure and simple, but on monopolies alongside exchange, the market, competition and crises.
In the epoch of finance capital the preponderance of a handful of industrial leviathans becomes overwhelming _-_-_
~^^*^^ The Road to Communism, p. 474.
111 owing to the fact that millions of small, medium and even some large enterprises find themselves in total bondage to a few hundred financial and industrial giants. This trend, the first signs of which were only discernible at the beginning of the present century, subsequently attained gigantic proportions. Today this trend has fundamentally changed the relations between monopoly and non-monopolised elements of the economy, as a consequence of which the position of the monopolies has changed in the economic system of capitalism as a whole.In highly developed capitalist countries today the nonmonopolised sector embraces hundreds of thousands of small and medium enterprises with a low rate of profit, an unequal status in trade transactions, limited possibilities in the market of loan capital, unstable standing and a high ``death rate''. They are entirely dependent on the big concerns, which dictate their will to many small enterprises by virtue of the fact that they finance these enterprises, or buy the bulk of their output, or keep them dependent in some other way.
The larger the company and the higher its financial status, the greater become its possibilities of gaining control over its weaker competitors. This is illustrated by the relations of the United States General Motors Corporation with marketing firms and suppliers. Apart from the enterprises directly within its orbit, it controls nearly 21,000 suppliers employing over 400,000 workers, and 400,000 firms selling automobiles and other commodities manufactured by it.
At the beginning of the present century the monopolies were predominant in the key industries and held the commanding heights in the national economy. Subsequent decades brought them complete and undivided sway over the economy in the capitalist countries. Monopolisation embraced all branches without exception. Initially, the monopolies consolidated their position in the basic branches of the heavy industry and then spread to the light industry and trade and acquired control of the main branches of agriculture. Combined with the subordination of the bulk of the medium and small enterprises to monopoly domination, all this signifies a qualitatively new stage of their development, of the growth of their omnipotence and of oppression by them.
This new stage is characterised by a change not only of the relations between the monopolies and the non-- 112 monopolised sectors of the economy but of the relations between the monopoly giants themselves. At the previous stage, when the monopolies operated on the broad basis of the old capitalism, there was a trend towards the merging of each branch within the framework of a single monopoly despite the fact that a number of branches each had several monopoly octopuses. With the further growth of the monopolisation of the economy and the colossal increase of the scale of production a situation took shape in which not one but several monopoly giants were predominant in most branches.
The monopolisation level of the key branches of the economy in the capitalist countries is steadily rising. The largest monopolies are the oil, chemical, electrical engineering, automobile, engineering and war industry concerns. The biggest monopoly of the capitalist world for the size of its sales is General Motors, the United States automobile trust. In 1967 its sales turnover exceeded 20,000 million dollars, its capital amounted to over 11,000 million dollars and its net profit totalled 1,600 million dollars. General Motors enterprises employ 728,000 factory and office workers.
Even the most zealous exponents of capitalism cannot deny the predominance of the monopolies. For example, Adolf A. Berle, one of the best known apologists of the ``American way of life'', notes that in United States industry concentration has reached a higher level than any other system in world history. He writes: ``But it (American law--- L.L.) has sanctioned and perhaps even encouraged a system, industry by industry, in which a few large corporations dominate the trade. Two or three, or at most, five, corporations will have more than half the business, the remainder being divided among a greater or lesser number of smaller concerns who must necessarily live within the conditions made for them by the 'Big Two' or 'Big Three' or 'Big Five' as the case may be.''^^*^^
A general law of development of the capitalist countries is that the level of monopolisation grows faster and proves to be higher than the level of concentration of production. As a rule, the monopoly giants envelop a steadily growing _-_-_
~^^*^^ Adolf A. Berle, Jr., The 20th Century Capitalist Revolution, New York, 1954, p. 16.
__PRINTERS_P_113_COMMENT__ 8---2635 113 number of production units. At the same time, with the general growth of the scale of industrial production and the rapid spread of specialisation, many branches are ruled not by one but by several monopolies.This is the basis on which bourgeois economists found their apologetic conclusions. Slurring over the economic essence of monopoly rule, they launch out on pseudo-- scientific arguments to the effect that under modern capitalism competition retains its beneficial role as a powerful lever of progress. Pseudo-scientific treatises containing a mass of figures are written in which are analysed all sorts of situations arising in the market as a result of the domination of one, two or a few concerns in a given branch of production.
A Marxist-Leninist analysis leaves no doubt whatever that the domination of several monopolies in each branch of industry is the natural result of the development of the monopoly stage of capitalism. During the past few decades the development of the monopolies has been multifarious. The organisational forms of the monopolies, the character of the relations between them and the correlation of strength between individual monopolies and between groups of monopolies have undergone a change with the growth of the scale of production, the formation of new branches and the advance in equipment and technologies. In the course of the savage struggle between the monopolies some grow stronger and Occupy the leading position in the industrial arena while others are pushed into the background or are forced to leave the stage altogether.
Like entire industries and the capitalist countries themselves, the monopolies develop very unevenly, by leaps and bounds. But throughout the 20th century they have been steadily growing and acquiring increasing influence in all spheres of life. Within each capitalist country the monopolies establish their rule over a growing range of industries. The monopolies spread from the principal citadels of imperialism to the vast outskirts of the capitalist world. At the same time, as Lenin predicted, monopoly rule does not do away with numerous forms of pre-monopoly and even precapitalist economy.
The growth of the monopolies in depth through the envelopment of more and more industries, and in breadth through the envelopment of more and more sectors of the 114 capitalist world economy has inevitably given rise to a situation in which the manufacture of the most important products is in the hands not of one but of several monopolies. The economic essence of monopoly rule, which consists in the replacement of free competition by compacts and struggle between the monopolies, in the replacement of prices freely taking shape in the market by prices established by the monopolies, and in the replacement of average profits by monopoly high profits, has not changed. On the contrary it has become more pronounced.
In the Programme of the CPSU the role played by the monopolies in the economy and policies of modern capitalism is characterised as follows: ``A handful of millionaires and multimillionaires wield arbitrary power over the entire wealth of the capitalist world and make the life of entire nations mere small change in their selfish deals.''^^*^^
From time to time the few monopolies ruling some branch of production engage in a fierce struggle among themselves. These clashes end either with the absorption of the weakened competitor by the stronger vulture, or with an agreement which signifies an armistice until the next conflict. But under all conditions the clashes and compacts between the monopoly giants have nothing in common with the free competition of pre-monopoly capitalism.
Formerly competition raged in two basic channels---- between monopolies and non-monopolies and between the monopolies themselves. Today overwhelming predominance has been acquired by the competition between the monopolies. This concerns intra-branch and inter-branch competition. The specific forms and methods of the competitive struggle deriving from monopoly rule have made an indelible imprint on all aspects of the life of modern bourgeois society---not only on the economy but on all other spheres of social and private life.
The interpenetration of monopolisation and competition between the monopolies marks a new stage in the development of the basic contradiction of capitalism, a contradiction that determines imperialism's place in history as the eve of the socialist revolution. This contradiction, it is stated in the Programme of the CPSU, ``manifests itself in _-_-_
~^^*^^ The Road to Communism, p. 471.
115 production anarchy and in the fact that the purchasing power of society falls short of the expansion of production and leads periodically to destructive economic crises''.^^*^^The aggravation of the main contradiction of capitalism under monopoly rule is due to a series of far-reaching crises that have shaken in the world capitalist system during the past few decades. A particularly devastating crisis occurred in 1929--1933. On the eve of that crisis, while the apologists of the monopolies were forecasting a crisis-free development of capitalism and evolving anti-scientific theories of ``organised capitalism'', Marxist-Leninist science foresaw that the crisis was inevitable. In their historical documents the Communist Parties comprehensively analysed the reasons for the crisis and characterised its features. In the CC report to the Fifteenth Congress of the CPSU(B) in 1927 it was stated that out of capitalist stabilisation would grow the most intense and acute crisis of capitalism, a crisis fraught with the danger of new wars and threatening stabilisation. The analysis offered by the Fifteenth Congress of the increasing disintegration of capitalist stabilisation, it was pointed out in the resolution adopted by the Sixteenth Congress, was borne out entirely by the world economic crisis that broke out on the basis of the general crisis of capitalism. It aggravated to bursting point all the fundamental contradictions of capitalism.^^**^^
Marxism-Leninism teaches that the growth of the main contradiction of capitalism serves as the objective foundation for rallying the broadest sections of the people in the struggle against monopoly oppression and for the establishment of an anti-monopoly front capable of opposing the anti-popular policies of monopoly capital, curbing the monopolies and setting in opposition to them the real force of the overwhelming majority of society. ``All the main sections of a nation,'' it is stated in the Programme of the CPSU, ``have a vital interest in abolishing the unlimited power of the monopolies. This makes it possible to unite all the democratic movements opposing the oppression of the finance oligarchy in a mighty anti-monopoly torrent."^^***^^
_-_-_~^^*^^ The Road to Communism, p. 452.
~^^**^^ The CPSU in Resolutions..., Part III, Russ. ed., p. 32.
~^^***^^ The Road to Communism, p. 483.
116Monopoly rule denotes the predominance of finance capital. During the present century the development of capitalism has been marked by the consolidation of finance capital and the growth of oppression by the financial oligarchy.
Finance capital is a new economic category that sprang up at the monopoly stage of capitalism. This category expresses the specific relations of production under imperialism. However, the soil for the emergence of finance capital was naturally prepared by the entire process of capitalist development, chiefly by the law of concentration and centralisation of capital that was revealed by Marx, by the process of the separation of the ownership of capital from the investment of capital in production.
In tracing the rise of finance capital and determining the content of this concept, Lenin singled out the following factors: concentration of production, the monopolies that grew out of this concentration and the merging or integration of bank and industrial monopolies. These factors continue to operate during the subsequent stages of the development of monopoly capitalism. Throughout its history imperialism remains an epoch of finance capital. Bourgeois apologist and reformist attempts to deny or camouflage the predominance of finance capital crumble at the very first contact with reality.
Finance capital rule provides particularly vivid evidence of the parasitic character of capitalist private ownership. Formerly, during the pre-monopoly epoch the private ownership of the capitalist meant the right of the owner of the means of production to the acquisition of the labour of others and to the product of that labour. In the epoch of finance capital the monopolist disposes not only of the labour of others but also of capital belonging to others, which in many cases exceeds his own capital.
Under present-day capitalism the bank monopolies build up their financial power by establishing close ties with insurance companies and investment trusts. Many leading banks have founded such institutions. In such cases the insurance companies and other financial institutions have become virtual branches of the bank monopolies in one or another sphere of business. The insurance companies accumulate vast sums of money. A result of pension laws 117 is that huge sums of money have also accumulated in the pension funds over the past few decades. Deductions from wages and salaries are the main source of these funds.
Having become monopolists in the money market, the banks seek to seize control of all savings, including small savings. This purpose is served by a network of savings banks, while over the past few decades the bank monopolies have organised so-called investment companies for the same purpose. These companies build up funds by acquiring stocks and shares issued by various firms, mainly the largest concerns, and on the basis of these funds issue shares, usually of small denomination, which are disseminated among relatively broad strata of the people.
The apologists of capitalism laud the investment companies as a model of the ``democratisation of capital" and of ``people's capitalism''. Actually, these companies are the vehicles for collecting small savings that are ultimately placed at the disposal of a tiny handful of financial tycoons. The activities of the investment companies, as of other analogous interests, mark the further growth of fictitious capital inasmuch as their emissions are based not on real capital but on securities, which in themselves are fictitious capital. The changes that have taken place in the structure of finance capital as a result of the growth of the influence and importance of institutions like insurance companies, pension funds and investment companies signify a further ramification of the system of fictitious capital, which has been raised to the second power, as it were.
These changes affect the relations between the various financial institutions and the relations between the bank and industrial monopolies. The concrete forms in which bank and industrial monopoly capital merge or integrate do not remain immutable throughout the monopoly stage of capitalism. But the substance of this process does not change: we observe the formation and further growth of finance capital, which is the integrated capital of bank and industrial monopolies.
Under present-day capitalism many of the large concerns become their own banks, i.e., reservoirs supplying the lion's share of the funds for investment. Evidence of this is the sharp increase of the share of inner resources in the investments of the industrial concerns. In economic literature this is called self-financing.
118There has been a particularly marked growth of selffinancing after the Second World War. This growth is stimulated by the policies pursued by the bourgeois state creating the conditions under which a large share of the profits remains in the hands of the monopolies. This aim is achieved with the help of tax legislation, the policy of state regulation of prices, laws allowing for speeding up the depreciation of fixed capital, the laws on pension and other funds, and so on.
Bourgeois economists portray self-financing as some new source for expanding production, claiming that the driving force behind present-day large-scale enterprise is not gain but the interests of the community. Assertions of this kind have nothing in common with reality.
Actually, self-financing means the capitalisation of surplus value at the enterprise producing it. In this sense self-- financing is by no means a new method of extended reproduction; on the contrary, in a certain sense it signifies a reversion to the time when the accumulation of an enterprise's own profits served as its main source for extending production. Such was the situation prior to the spread of joint-stock companies. It is not, however, a simple case of reversion to the past, but a phenomenon of modern capitalist reality engendered by the contradictions inherent in it.
Self-financing is the product chiefly of the growing general instability of the capitalist economy, particularly of the money market's heightened instability. Under these conditions extended reproduction depends to an unparalleled extent on the utilisation of the inner resources of the enterprise concerned. These resources consist of the sinking fund and undistributed profits. The rapid growth of these funds is facilitated by the financial and tax policies pursued by the governments in the interests of the principal financial groups. Self-financing is thus a method of state-monopoly intervention in capitalist reproduction.
The development of capitalism in the 20th century has fully borne out the Marxist-Leninist conclusion that the predominance of finance capital over all other forms of capital signifies the supremacy of the financial oligarchy. A numerically small group of bank and industrial monopolists wielding unprecedented power exercise unbridled control over the economy and all other aspects of the life of the capitalist countries, regardless of the state forms of bourgeois rule.
119The United States of America is a classical example of a country completely dominated by the financial oligarchy.
The mechanism of the rule of a few financial groups over the entire economy of any capitalist country is extremely intricate. At the outset of the monopoly stage of capitalism Lenin noted with great perspicacity that the rule of the financial oligarchy had to be examined mainly as a ``system of participation''. Further development left no doubt that the expansion of the rule of the finance capital magnates over huge masses of capital belonging to others is linked with the expansion of the system of participation in its various forms. What was only a hypothesis at the early stage of imperialism, materialised as time went by. In all capitalist countries the tune is called today by the huge industrial and finance empires founded on the rule of a few magnates over huge masses of capital belonging to other people.
Ferdinand Lundberg, who is known for his studies of large American fortunes, cites statistics in his book The Rich and the Super-Rich which show that a group consisting of 1.6 per cent of the population owns 80 per cent of all stock and 88.5 per cent of corporate bonds. On the basis of these statistics he draws the conclusion that ``virtually all companies---large, medium and small---are ultimately controlled and/or mainly owned by a few large interests manifested mainly as families''.^^*^^
The financial oligarchy receives huge unearned incomes which dwarf the incomes of the ruling dynasties. At the beginning of the 20th century the monopoly capital magnates did not feel it was necessary to conceal or understate their incomes. But the social atmosphere in the world has changed to such an extent during the past few decades that the present Croesuses do not find it opportune to advertise their wealth. Moreover, the official figures on the incomes of the financial oligarchy are usually truncated by various machinations. However, even these understated figures are not devoid of interest.
In the USA, according to figures presented by companies to the state commission for securities and fund operations, _-_-_
~^^*^^ Ferdinand Lundberg, The Rich and the Super-Rich. A Study in the Power of Money Today, New York, 1968, p. 225.
120 of the 771 persons who in 1961 occupied key posts in 235 leading companies, 25 received over 300,000 dollars, 47 received from 200,000 to 300,000 dollars, 338 received from 100,000 to 200,000 dollars, and 361 received from 31,500 to 100,000 dollars. The salaries of these 771 directors were: chairmen of boards of directors---from 50,000 to 557,700 dollars (average---134,300 dollars); company directors---from 42,500 to 503,700 dollars (average---119,100 dollars); and company vice-presidents---from 31,500 to 476,200 dollars (average---78,600 dollars).In giving these figures the mouthpiece of US business circles noted that in addition many companies kept up the practice of selling cut-price shares to their top echelon officials.
Fragmentary data of this kind lift only the edge of the curtain hiding the ``innocent incomes" of the monopoly magnates. Huge sums of money are deposited in the socalled expense accounts of the magnates, and the company pays for the upkeep of their luxurious villas, cars and aircraft, and generously pays all sorts of other expenses. The apologists of the United States monopolies usually refer to the high income tax. But the lion's share of the actual incomes of the monopoly magnates, namely, everything received by them from the companies over and above their salaries, is not taxable. As regards the taxable part of the incomes, there are numerous loopholes which enable the millionaires and billionaires to retain money due to the state.
The rule of the financial oligarchy inevitably penetrates all aspects of social life, regardless of the political system. The financial oligarchy frames a reactionary line in home and foreign policy. It rules society through the union between banks and industry and between the monopolies and the government. It forces the whole of society to pay a fantastic tribute and, at the same time, enmeshes other countries in a net of financial dependence, which is the economic foundation for the exploitation of .all the regions subordinate to imperialism.
The far-reaching historical changes that have taken place during the past few decades have sharply curtailed the financial oligarchy's sphere of rule and pillage. But the essence and forms of the financial oligarchy have not changed. Today, as half a century ago, the financial oligarchy 121 holds undivided sway over the capitalist part of the world, inspiring anti-popular policies and an aggressive line in the international arena.
Marxism-Leninism teaches that monopoly rule inevitably leads to the most severe aggravation of all the contradictions of capitalism---class, national, socio-economic and political. The growing concentration of production and capital widens the gulf between the classes and increases class antagonisms. Despite the assertions of bourgeois sociologists that the proletariat is undergoing ``erosion'' and is turning into a ``middle strata'', facts show that the proletarisation of the overwhelming majority of the population is being speeded up. In West Germany, for instance, nearly fourfifths of the population live by hiring themselves out as manpower. The bourgeoisie as a whole comprises only 5.3 per cent of the population, while the big bourgeoisie and the financial oligarchy total only 1.7 per cent of the population. A hundred billionaires and multi-billionaires are the real rulers of the country's economy and policy.^^*^^
According to the estimates of J. M. Budish, a progressive American economist, the principal contingents of the US working class---industrial and farm workers, transport, communications and other workers and allied strata of the working people (office and shop employees, mental workers and workers engaged in the sphere of distribution) comprise 70 per cent of the manpower. According to his assessment, of the nearly 29 million so-called white-collar workers making up 43 per cent of the total labour force 21,700,000 are part of the working class or merge with it. The CPSU Programme stresses that ``life has fully confirmed the Marxist thesis of increasing proletarisation in capitalist society''.^^**^^ The studies made by Marxist economists provide irrefutable proof of this.
In spite of the inventions of the advocates of monopoly rule, who speak of the erosion of class barriers, the further _-_-_
~^^*^^ Monopole-Profite-Aggression. Das staatsmonopolistische Herrschaftssystem in Westdeutschland, Berlin, Dietz-Verlag, 1965, p. 64.
~^^**^^ The Road to Communism, pp. 475--76.
122 polarisation of the classes continues in bourgeois society. This is admitted even by people far removed from Marxism and communism. For example, Don Vial, Director of Research, California Labour Federation, AFL-CIO, criticising the government programme for the abolition of unemployment, notes that it overlooks ``the millions of American families in this nation of so-called affluence who live in poverty'', and declares that in recent years ``the rich have been getting richer and the poor have been getting poorer''.^^*^^In the above-mentioned book by Ferdinand Lundberg the social contrasts in the USA today are characterised as follows:
``A horde if not a majority of Americans live in shacks, cabins, hovels, shanties, hand-me-down Victorian eyesores, rickety tenements and flaky apartment buildings. ... At the same time, a relative handful of Americans are extravagantly endowed, like princes in the Arabian Nights tales. Their agents deafen a baffled world with a never-ceasing chant about the occult merits of private-property ownership. . . .
``It would be difficult in the 1960s for a large majority of Americans to show fewer significant possessions if the country had long laboured under a grasping dictatorship.''^^**^^
The main contradiction of capitalist society---the antagonism between labour and capital---is steadily growing more acute. Even with the certain increase of nominal (i.e., cash) earnings, the real wages of the working people remain low and do not ensure the satisfaction of their growing requirements. The growth of nominal wages is reduced practically to zero by the soaring prices and the rising cost of living. The growth of labour productivity as a result of rapid technological progress leads to an increase of the profits of the monopolies. In West Germany, for example, in the period from 1950 to 1960 the wages of 20 million factory and office workers amounted to 46,500 million marks, while 50 of the largest concerns netted a profit of 44,600 million marks. In the period from 1952 to 1960 the profits of- the capitalists in Japan increased 350 per cent, while the total wages of factory and office workers rose only 120 per cent.
_-_-_~^^*^^ Unemployment and the American Economy, New York-- London-Sydney, 1964, pp. 147, 148.
~^^**^^ Ferdinand Lundberg, The Rich and the Super-Rich. A Study in the Power of Money Today, New York, 1968, p. 11.
123During the Second World War, when millions of people were in the fighting forces or engaged in the production of armaments, mass unemployment dissolved and the agents of the monopolies began to maintain that capitalism was able to ensure employment for everybody. Nothing of the kind took place. According to official statistics, there are in the capitalist countries today approximately 7 million totally unemployed and a huge number of people who can only find partial employment.
Modern capitalism is unable to make full and intelligent use of the productive forces, chiefly of society's main productive force---the working class. This comes vividly to light in the USA, the principal citadel of imperialism. In a report prepared by the Department of Labour for the President it is admitted ``that the level of unemployment remains unsatisfactory---1964 was the seventh successive year in which the unemployment rate averaged over 5 per cent" of the able-bodied population.
Here it should be borne in mind that the unemployment figures are greatly understated in official statistics. According to trade union data, to the 3,900,000 totally unemployed should be added 2,500,000 part-time unemployed, i.e., those who are not employed for the full working day, and over 1,000,000 ``concealed'' unemployed, i.e., ``the uncounted numbers who have withdrawn from the labour market because of discouragement or failure to find jobs''. The actual unemployment figure is thus not 5 per cent, as given in official statistics, but 9 per cent.^^*^^ Unemployment inevitably leads to a deterioration of the position of the broadest sections of the working mass. ``The bourgeois myth of 'full employment','' it is stated in the Programme of the CPSU, ``has proved to be sheer mockery, for the working class is suffering continuously from mass unemployment and insecurity.''^^**^^
A work on the problem of unemployment, compiled by a team of authors and brought out by Columbia University, contains a typical admission which mirrors the concern of the ruling circles over the threat of spreading unemployment. One of the authors writes that unemployment as a _-_-_
~^^*^^ Labour Fact Book. 17, Labour Research Association, New York, 1965, pp. 12--13.
~^^**^^ The Road to Communism, p. 475.
124 pathological problem can undermine the basic institutions of United States society, while according to another author the polarisation of incomes as a result of unemployment is a potential threat to American society.^^*^^At the same time, one of the milestones of modern times is the fact that in some highly developed capitalist countries the working class has by dint of a long and determined struggle forced the bourgeoisie into some concessions in wages, social insurance and some other conditions of life. In these countries the conditions of life of the working class have unquestionably improved as compared with the 19th century. Nonetheless, the claptrap of the apologists of capitalism about the ``welfare state" is obviously hypocritical because with all the concessions that the bourgeoisie has been forced to make the gulf between the classes is growing wider even in countries with the highest standard of living. Modern capitalism offers a picture of unprecedented social contrasts. It dooms millions of people to insecurity and privations of every kind.
The talk about the ``welfare state" is usually based on the fact that as a result of many years of struggle the working class of the highly developed capitalist countries has secured the satisfaction of some of its demands.
The apologists of the monopolies misrepresent the situation in the capitalist world, claiming that the bourgeoisie shows a concern for the ``welfare'' of the people on its own initiative. Actually, every improvement of the conditions of its life is won by the working class in struggle. Since the Second World War there has been a huge growth of the number of strikes involving immense numbers of workers. In 1919--1939 there were 177,400 strikes with 80,800,000 participants, while in 1946--1965 the number of strikes rose to 247,400 with 222,600,000 participants. During the past decade the number of strikers doubled to reach 57--58 million in 1968, and most of the strikes were of a political nature. These were the battles in which the workers secured the satisfaction of some of their most pressing demands.
What, one may ask, are the factors that have helped the working class to achieve a certain measure of success in the struggle for its economic interests? The principal factor is _-_-_
~^^*^^ Unemployment and the American Economy, New York, 1964, pp. 32, 80, 81.
125 the existence of victorious socialism as embodied by the world socialist system. This factor has to be reckoned with by the ruling classes of the capitalist countries.Without taking into consideration these circumstances, which derive from the existence of socialism, it is impossible either to understand or explain the changes that have taken place in the position of considerable strata of working people in a number of countries.
``Fear of revolution,'' it is stated in the Programme of the CPSU, ``the successes of the socialist countries, and the pressure of the working-class movement compel the bourgeoisie to make partial concessions with respect to wages, labour conditions, and social security.''^^*^^ However, given the least opportunity, the ruling classes will always seek to recoup the concessions wrested from them. This is illustrated by the numerous attempts made in all the capitalist countries to bring down the working people's standard of living. It is only the determined, organised resistance of the working class that obstructs these attempts.
The monopolies, Leninism teaches us, inevitably give rise to a trend towards stagnation and decay, and at certain periods this trend becomes pronounced in some branches of industry in individual countries. However, it would be wrong to think that this trend towards stagnation and decay rules out the rapid growth of capitalism. As a whole, capitalism grows immeasurably faster than before, although this growth is extremely uneven and combines with the decay of entire capital-rich countries.
The enemies of the revolutionary theory of the working class attribute to Marxism-Leninism the assertion that at its monopoly stage of development capitalism is incapable of growth. In this case, as in many others, the enemies of Marxism slander the teaching they hate so much. Actually, Marxists-Leninists have always emphatically rejected the metaphysical concept that the trend towards stagnation generated by the monopolies implies the paralysis of the productive forces. They have exposed the dangerous, anti-- _-_-_
~^^*^^ The Road to Communism, pp. 474--75.
126 revolutionary conclusion about the automatic downfall of capitalism, a conclusion resting on the above-mentioned erroneous concept.The monopoly stage of capitalism differs from the previous stage by an unparalleled exacerbation of all the contradictions inherent in the capitalist mode of production. But this growth of contradictions by no means implies the stoppage of all advancement. Marxist dialectics does not counterpose contradictions to movement, but reveals their unity.
As long as capitalism exists it cannot remain at a standstill. Production grows also during the monopoly stage of capitalism, although this growth is often interrupted by periods of deceleration or stagnation when it comes up against ever deeper contradictions. However, the trend brought to light by the founders of Marxism in the Manifesto of the Communist Party continues to operate also under imperialism, namely: ``The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole range of relations of society.''^^*^^
A far-reaching scientific and technological revolution, prepared by the development of science and technology in the course of a number of decades and embracing the sphere of production, commenced in the second half of the 20th century. Capitalist relations of production are much too narrow to allow for the realisation of the unbounded possibilities of the scientific and technological revolution. Capitalism is unable to accomplish this revolution for the benefit of society. However, it would be wrong to close one's eyes to the substantial technological progress in the capitalist world, to the deep-going changes taking place in the structure of social production, in equipment and in production technologies.
The profoundly contradictory manner in which capitalism makes use of scientific and technological achievements is shown in the Main Document adopted by the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties. ``The scientific and technological revolution,'' the Document states, ``accelerates the socialisation of the economy; under monopoly domination this leads to the reproduction of social antagonisms on _-_-_
~^^*^^ Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 111.
127 a growing scale and in a sharper form. Not only have the long-standing contradictions of capitalism been aggravated, but new ones have arisen as well. This applies, in particular, to the contradiction between the unlimited possibilities opened up by the scientific and technological revolution and the roadblocks raised by capitalism to their utilisation for the benefit of society as a whole. Capitalism squanders national wealth, allocating for war purposes a great proportion of scientific discoveries and immense material resources. This is the contradiction between the social character of present-day production and the state-monopoly nature of its regulation. This is not only the growth of the contradiction between capital and labour, but also the deepening of the antagonism between the interests of the overwhelming majority of the nation and those of the financial oligarchy.''^^*^^The struggle between two opposing trends---towards stagnation and towards technological progress---is typical of the monopoly stage of capitalism as a whole. At different stages of the development of monopoly capitalism this struggle proceeds under different conditions.
The trend towards technological stagnation was particularly pronounced at the early phases of the development of monopoly capitalism. During those phases the monopolies operated as a superstructure on the broad basis of premonopoly forms of the economy. In the competitive struggle against technically poorer equipped non-monopoly enterprises, they could afford, in some cases, the luxury of systematically holding up technological progress, and thereby try to avert any depreciation of the huge investments residing in old machinery.
The situation has changed fundamentally at the modern level of the monopolisation of the economy. The competition is narrowing down to that between the giant monopolies and, naturally, these giants are not averse to using in the competitive struggle such a powerful weapon as technological progress. Under present-day high rates of technological development, any lag spells mortal danger even to the big concerns. Hence the large scale of research; the bulk of this work is financed by the state, but its results are placed at _-_-_
~^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 19.
128 the disposal of the monopolies. A particularly rapid expansion of research is a feature of United States capitalism. At the close of the Second World War the expenses on research in the USA totalled less than 2,000 million dollars; 44 per cent of this sum was contributed by the Government. During the period 1956--1965 the Government's expenditures on the promotion of science in the USA increased fourfold compared with 1946--1955. In 1967 these expenditures amounted to 22,000 million dollars, and in 1968 to 25,000 million dollars.The competition in the world capitalist market is a powerful stimulus for raising the technological level of production. The aggravation of the struggle for foreign markets is inducing the monopolies not only to keep abreast of their competitors but, where possible, to outstrip them.
Although these changes, deriving from the inner logic of the development of modern capitalism, are important, a more important role is played by the new situation in the world, a situation in which the capitalist countries have to compete with the socialist system in the economic field. In this competition immense importance is acquired by the rates of economic growth. The overlords of monopoly capital and the governments serving their interests are bending every effort to secure more or less acceptable rates of growth. The problem of growth has become the most fashionable commodity in the market of capitalist economic science. Economists are evolving various ``theories of growth'', charting ``growth diagrams" and making long-term forecasts of the economic growth for individual branches, entire countries, large groups of countries (the Common Market, for example), and all the capitalist states of Western Europe. A special place is occupied by forecasts and programmes of economic development of the young sovereign states that have delivered themselves from colonial dependence.
Noting that at present the situation on the anti-imperialist front is in many ways determined by the course of the economic competition between socialism and capitalism, L. I. Brezhnev stated at the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties that in this sphere the socialist countries had scored conspicuous successes. This was eloquently corroborated by figures. During the past ten years the national income of the countries in the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance had increased 93 per cent, __PRINTERS_P_129_COMMENT__ 9---2635 129 while in the developed capitalist countries the national income rose 63 per cent in the same period. Occupying 18 per cent of the world's territory and having only 10 per cent of the world's population, the CMEA countries now account for approximately one-third of the world's industrial product.^^*^^
Socialism's achievements in the economic competition with capitalism are also to be seen in the statistics published in 1969 in the UN Statistical Yearbook. During the period from 1958 to 1967 the national product in the socialist countries increased 83 per cent, in the developed capitalist countries 55 per cent, and in the young developing countries 52 per cent. The national product increment per head of the population during that period was 65 per cent in the socialist countries, 39 per cent in the capitalist countries, and 21 per cent in the developing countries.
The existence of the world socialist system is a factor which must be taken into account in order to understand the specific situation in which the struggle of the two approaches to technological progress is unfolding under present-day capitalism. The course of this struggle is also influenced by. another factor, which stems largely from the existence of the socialist system. This factor is the changed conditions of the struggle waged by the working class and it operates in two ways.
First, the increased determination of the working class to fight for its vital interests, and the concessions wrested by it from the bourgeoisie stimulate the introduction of technological improvements by virtue of the law discovered by Marx: the lower the wages the less the capitalist desires to boost the technological level of production and, conversely, the higher the wages the more is the capitalist induced to improve technology. The struggle waged by the working class for an improvement of its position thus helps to speed up technological progress, instead of holding it up, as the agents of the monopolies slanderously maintain.
Second, the working class's enhanced strength, improved organisation and higher level of political awareness are a formidable warning to the monopoly bourgeoisie that an economic catastrophe, for instance, a grave crisis, may easily _-_-_
~^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 145.
130 be a deadly threat to the very existence of the capitalist system.The spectre of the crisis of the 1930s, called the Great Depression in Western literature, never leaves the minds of the politicians and ideologists of the bourgeois world. An opinion widespread among them is that in the modern situation capitalism will not survive another crisis of that scale, with the privations that it will bring the people in the form of millions of unemployed, poverty and starvation. Hence the striving of the monopolists to improve technology, increase the scale of production and expand the markets. Here a special role is ascribed to the promotion of state economic activity, i.e., to the growth of state-monopoly capitalism.
``Modern capitalism,'' state the Theses of the CC CPSU on the 50th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, ``is, first and foremost, state-monopoly capitalism, which adapts itself to the struggle between the two world systems. In face of the modern level of the productive forces, the specific features of the international class struggle, the successes of the socialist countries and the intensification of the class battles within the capitalist world, the imperialists are manoeuvring in an effort to curb such highly destructive and socially dangerous phenomena as anarchy of production, economic crises and mass unemployment. They widely resort to state regulation of the economy, introduce new and better camouflaged, but essentially no less ruthless, methods of exploitation and increasingly have recourse to social demagogy.''^^*^^
Under imperialism the main contradiction of capitalism--- between the social nature of production and the privatecapitalist form of appropriation---reaches the extent where the bourgeois state is compelled to take over fairly broad economic functions in order to safeguard the capitalist system and ensure high superprofits for the monopolies.
In the Programme of the CPSU the experience of the past half-century is summed up and on that basis it is pointed _-_-_
~^^*^^ 50th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, p. 50.
131 out that the formation and growth of the monopolies lead to direct state intervention in capitalist reproduction in the interests of the financial oligarchy. To further these interests the state launches various regulative measures in the branches of the economy controlled by it.Being the result of monopoly rule and the attendant contradictions, the development of state-monopoly capitalism, in its turn, serves as a powerful accelerator of the further concentration of production and monopolisation of the economy. ``Monopolisation,'' write the authors of the treatise on West German imperialism, ``is the main content of the economic activity of the imperialist state.''^^*^^
The bourgeois state's active intervention in economic life benefits not society as a whole but the big capitalists. Statemonopoly capitalism, the Programme of the CPSU says, is in effect the integration of the monopoly forces with the forces of the state into a single mechanism for the purpose of enriching the monopolies, suppressing the working-class and national liberation movements, saving the capitalist system and starting wars of aggression. The capitalist class and its executive---the bourgeois state---use state-monopoly methods to reach a temporary solution of contradictions and surmount some of the obstacles arising during the functioning of the economic mechanism, particularly in a situation marked by upheavals such as war or crises. But the character of the most effective state-monopoly measures, particularly the nationalisation of various links of the production apparatus, is such that they are regarded by the monopolists not without apprehension. The reason for this is that these measures most strikingly show society that capitalist private ownership is totally unneeded and that therefore these measures can be used by the working class in its struggle against monopoly rule.
Where circumstances force the bourgeois state to nationalise factories or industries, the ruling class endeavours to use such steps to benefit monopoly capital. Such was the case when nationalisation was put into effect in Britain and in France after the Second World War. When the financial oligarchy finds it profitable to transfer state property into _-_-_
~^^*^^ Imperialisms heute. Der staatsmonopolistische Kapitalismus in Westdeutschland, Berlin, Dietz-Verlag, 1965, p. 758.
132 private hands and the alignment of the class forces in the country permits this step, the monopolies line their pockets through re-privatisation, as was the case after the Second World War in the USA and then in West Germany.State-monopoly measures serve the interests of the giant monopolies, strengthening the position of the leading monopolies in relation to non-monopolised enterprises, protecting the monopolies against risk at the expense of the state, facilitating mergers or helping the strongest monopolies to swallow their weaker competitors.
The basis on which private and state monopolies combine is that state enterprises serve the private corporations as suppliers of raw materials, electric power and so on at artificially reduced prices. A bourgeois economist, who has written a book on the development of state-monopoly capitalism in present-day Italy, arrives at the following conclusion: ``Joint state and private management of state jointstock companies nullifies any attempt at a rational reorganisation of the state industrial complex and serves as a means of using state interests to screen the most selfish aims of the 'big barons' (finance magnates), giving them the possibility of socialising losses and privatising profits, and helping them to receive bonuses and subsidies and to evade taxes.''^^*^^
The interests of the monopolies are given priority consideration when enterprises are nationalised and their former owners are paid excessive compensation, and also when state enterprises are returned to the monopolies for an exceedingly small compensation, which in many cases is only nominal.
The growth of state budgets is the most all-embracing index of the development of state-monopoly capitalism and, at the same time, the basic source enriching the monopolies at the expense of the treasury. These budgets pump huge wealth into the safes of the monopolies.
In the USA, for example, the arms race has been a veritable El Dorado for the monopolies throughout the entire period since the war. Most of the mammoth orders linked with the militarisation of the economy go to the leading corporations connected with ``war business" and the Pentagon.
_-_-_~^^*^^ E. Rossi, I nostri quattrini, Bari, 1964, p. 518
133Direct gain at the expense of the treasury, i.e., the pumping of funds from the state budget into the safes of the monopolies, is the most obvious and, so to speak, most tangible outcome of the development of state-monopoly capitalism. But the integration of the power of the monopolies with the power of the state into a single mechanism operating in the interests of the largest monopolies is attended by other consequences, which frequently do not lend themselves to an exact qualitative determination. This concerns such forms of state-monopoly capitalism as the forced settlement of conflicts between labour and capital, the regulation or freezing of wages, the tax, finance and credit policy, and the arsenal of means facilitating the economic expansion of the leading monopolies in foreign countries.
A specific feature of present-day development of statemonopoly capitalism is that the bourgeois state concentrates in its hands large economic resources comprising a considerable portion of the total capital in the country and actively influences the entire course of capitalist reproduction. For example, according to summary estimates of German Marxist economists, in West Germany the capital of state enterprises totals 30,000 million marks, the state distributes and redistributes more than 130,000 million marks or almost half of the national income, and the state's share of the total investments amounts to 55 per cent. The state regulates the prices of almost 90 per cent of all farm products and powerfully influences the wages level and the social expenditures, thereby controlling the population's purchasing power. The state credit system controls more than 60 per cent of all the bank deposits.^^*^^
The enormous intensification of the bourgeois state's active intervention in economic life after the Second World War rests on a number of essential factors. The most important of these is the enhanced level of concentration of production and monopolisation in the vast majority of branches of the economy, signifying a further growth of the socialisation of production, which is analysed in Capital. In many European _-_-_
~^^*^^ Monopole-Profite-Aggression. Das staatsmonopolistischc Herrschaftssystem in Westdeutschland, Berlin, Dietz-Verlag, 1965, pp. 14, 60.
134 countries the nationalisation of individual enterprises and entire industries, carried out in a number of cases under pressure from the working class, has given the bourgeois state powerful levers for influencing economic development. An important role is played by the state budget, which embraces from one-fourth to one-third of the national income, and also by the tax policy and the credit system. In some countries a considerable portion of the investments belongs to the state. Everybody knows the key role played by the militarisation of the economy and the arms race in the post-war growth of state-monopoly capitalism.For all that, state-monopoly capitalism does not change the character of capitalism. ``Far from altering the position of the principal classes in the system of social production, it widens the rift between labour and capital, between the majority of the nation and the monopolies. Attempts at state regulation of the capitalist economy cannot eliminate competition and anarchy of production, cannot ensure the planned development of the economy on a nation-wide scale, because capitalist ownership and exploitation of wagelabour remain the basis of production.''^^*^^
At the same time, .the growth of the economic role played by the bourgeois state today marks a new stage of the integration of the power of the monopolies with the power of the state, a qualitatively new phase of the development of state-monopoly capitalism. ``The modern stage of statemonopoly capitalism,'' states the treatise prepared by German Marxist economists, ``is characterised by the aspiration of the monopolies to use various regulating measures in order to make use of the spontaneous operation of economic laws to further their profits and their economic and political aims.''^^**^^
These ends are served by the various forms of capitalist planning and economic programming.
Extremely indicative is the fact that a number of capitalist countries have found themselves compelled to introduce some element of planning into the bourgeois economy. While the last of the Mohicans of ``free competition" continue to anathematise the idea of planning, alleging that it is incompatible with the notorious ``freedom'', by which they mean _-_-_
~^^*^^ The Road to Communism, pp. 471--72.
~^^**^^ Imperialism™ heute..., p. 348.
135 capitalist freedom to exploit labour, influential circles of the ruling bourgeoisie pin most of their hopes on planning. They see planning a;> a means of improving the mechanism of the capitalist economy, taking the edge off the social conflicts and surmounting the difficulties deriving from the demands of the modern scientific and technological revolution. More important still, they regard economic programming and planning as an effective means enabling them to hold their own in the competition with socialism.The gravitation towards planning is in itself very symptomatic. It clearly shows that the powers that be of the bourgeois countries are sceptical of the capitalist economy's ability to cope with the tasks confronting it. We thus witness an attempt, to put it figuratively, to ``get a loan" from socialism, to assimilate a mainstay of the socialist economy like economic planning.
Unquestionably, capitalism and genuine economic planning are quite incompatible. This elementary scientific truth has to be unremittingly repeated and explained when we are confronted by knavish attempts to give capitalism a socialist hue or by a helpless inability to understand the fundamental difference between socialist economic planning and economic programming in bourgeois countries. There is no doubt whatever, as the Programme of the CPSU points out, that the bourgeois theories of ``crisis-free'' and ``planned'' capitalism are being reduced to ashes by the entire course of present-day capitalist economic development. But this does not imply that all the attempts at planning and programming are spurious. In Marxist literature it is explained that the executive of the monopoly, bourgeoisie, the modern bourgeois state, is able to ensure priority for the interests of that class as a whole over the claims of individual monopolies and also priority for the long-term interests of preserving the capitalist system over the temporary interests of various sections of the bourgeoisie. This circumstance is of particularly great significance in view of the economic competition between the two systems and the enhanced strength of the working class in countries ruled by the monopoly bourgeoisie.
The experience of the past period of more than half a century has fully confirmed Lenin's assessment that statemonopoly capitalism is irrefutable proof of the nearness of socialism, of the feasibility of achieving socialism and of the 136 pressing historical need for the socialist revolution. The enormous progress achieved by the socialisation of production, which makes the transfer of the economy into the hands of society as a whole both practicable and necessary, is particularly striking at the present level of development of state-monopoly capitalism. ``State-monopoly capitalism is the fullest material preparation for socialism.''^^*^^
The struggle for democracy and against reaction acquires immense importance in the present epoch when the positions of imperialism have been weakened and the balance of forces in the world between socialism and capitalism is steadily changing in favour of socialism. Under the new historical conditions, as the Programme of the CPSU underscores, the struggle for democracy is a component of the struggle for socialism and brings the socialist revolution nearer. Creatively enriching Marxist-Leninist theory, the CPSU and the world communist movement have come to the conclusion that in the present historical situation the working class in many bourgeois states has the possibility of compelling the bourgeoisie, before the overthrow of capitalism, to carry out vital measures which, going beyond the framework of ordinary reforms, would facilitate the struggle for socialism and promote the interests of the working masses.
Championing the interests of the majority of the nation, the working class combats the preparations for another world war, the unleashing of local wars, and the offensive of the fascist reaction. It fights for national independence, democratic rights and a higher living standard. It demands broad nationalisation on the most favourable terms for the people, and control by the parliament, trade unions and other democratic and representative organs over nationalised industries and the entire economic activity of the state.
On the basis of a concrete Marxist-Leninist analysis of the economic situation and social relations in each capitalist country, the Communist Parties put forward democratic alternatives to the mercenary overlordship of a tiny handful of financial magnates in the system of state-monopoly capitalism. These programmes envisage the eradication of monopoly domination, the democratisation not only of political life but of the economic system, and the subordination _-_-_
~^^*^^ The Road to Communism, p. 472.
137 of the system of state-monopoly capitalism to the interests of the people.In line with Marxist-Leninist principles, the Communist Parties of the capitalist countries are offering the people realistic programmes of struggle for democracy and for farreaching democratic reforms satisfying the interests of the overwhelming majority of the nation.
In the Theses of the CC CPSU headed ``50th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution'', it is stated: ``The scientific and technological revolution, the increasing statemonopoly regulation and on this basis a certain growth of production inevitably lead to a greater socialisation of production in the imperialist countries, to an aggravation of class contradictions, to substantial changes in the alignment of the social and political forces. This creates objective conditions for the further growth of anti-imperialist forces called upon to effect the revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism under the leadership of the working class.''^^*^^
Bourgeois apologists portray the capitalist world economic system as the greatest achievement of social progress. The creation of this system, they assert, has enabled the whole of mankind to use the benefits of the international division of labour, which is a mighty motive force of progress. They allege that countries that have been backward in the past now have every opportunity of achieving rapid economic development. This allegation has nothing in common with reality.
Capitalism was a global economy until the socialist revolution of 1917 in Russia, as long as imperialism held undivided sway in the world. The Great October Socialist Revolution made the first large breach in the world capitalist economy. A socialist economic system emerged and took its place alongside the capitalist economic system. The breach subsequently reached gigantic proportions as a result of the separation of a large group of countries from the capitalist system and the formation of a world socialist system. _-_-_
~^^*^^ 50th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, pp. 50--51.
138 Capitalism's conversion from the only and all-embracing system of world economy to one of the two systems of world economy represents not only a quantitative diminution of the sphere of capitalist domination but also a colossal qualitative leap of epoch-making significance.This qualitative change is an important milestone on the road to the withering away and death of the capitalist socioeconomic system. It is calling forth a profound crisis of the world capitalist economy, which is being made deeper, as the Programme of the CPSU points out, by such key processes of the modern epoch as the abolition of the capitalist system in a large group of countries, the growth and consolidation of the world socialist system, the disintegration of the colonial system and the downfall of the old empires, the break-up of the colonial structure of the economy in the liberated countries and the expansion of economic relations between these countries and the socialist states. These are the processes forming the historical background against which the contradictions of the capitalist world economic system are developing in the present epoch. Without taking into account the impact of these processes on the world capitalist economy we cannot understand any of the essential phenomena or any important development taking place in it.
The disintegration of the imperialist colonial system has confronted Marxist-Leninist science with a number of exceedingly important and complex problems. New vistas have opened up for colonial peoples who have won political independence. At the same time, the abolition of the colonial empires has seriously affected the position of the former metropolitan states. In the USSR and other countries Marxist economists successfully tackle the problems that arise in the new situation and sum up the new historical experience. The programme documents of the CPSU and the international communist movement contain a number of conclusions helping us to understand the position of the young sovereign states and the tasks facing them.
At the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties the situation in the young sovereign countries of Asia and Africa was analysed and it was noted that parallel with the task of consolidating and defending political independence, the central problems of socio-- economic development in these countries were the surmounting 139 of economic backwardness, the creation of an independent national economy, including an own industry, and the attainment of a higher standard of living. ``The solution of these problems,'' it is stated in the Meeting's Main Document, ``involves far-reaching socio-economic changes, the implementation of democratic agrarian reforms in the interests of the working peasantry and with its participation, the abolition of outdated feudal and pre-feudal relations, liquidation of oppression by foreign monopolies, radical democratisation of social and political life and the state apparatus, regeneration of national culture and the development of its progressive traditions, the strengthening of revolutionary Parties and the founding of such Parties where they do not yet exist.''^^*^^
The countries that have liberated themselves from colonial dependence belong to neither the imperialist system of states nor the system of socialist states. However, as the Programme of the CPSU points out, the vast majority of them have not yet torn themselves away from the world capitalist economy although they occupy a special place in it. ``They constitute that part of the world which is still being exploited by the capitalist monopolies.''^^**^^
Taking this circumstance into consideration, MarxistLeninist science analyses the relations taking shape in the world capitalist economy in the contemporary period. Among these relations a prominent place is occupied by the export of capital. The agents of the monopolies try to portray this as a boon for the countries into which foreign investments are being channelled. The speciousness of this claim is exposed by the fact that foreign investments are rapidly turned into capitalised surplus value squeezed out of the working class of the country concerned. During the past few decades it has been observed more and more clearly that foreign investments are covered many times over by the tribute flowing to the countries exporting capital from the countries to which capital is exported.
Speaking in the US Senate on March 29, 1962, Senator Thruston B. Morton declared that ``the only reason American business ever invests a dollar abroad is a cool calculation _-_-_
~^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 28.
~^^**^^ The Road to Communism, p. 491.
140 that this dollar in the foreseeable future will return many more dollars to the United States.. . . Americans are not in business abroad out of benevolence to foreign countries. . .''. To back up his words he gave the following figures. ``In the years 1950 through 1960, repatriated earnings from abroad amounted to $20.5 billion___From 1950 through 1960, for example, the out-flow of direct investment amounted to $12 billion. And so we had $8.5 billion more coming back to this country than we sent abroad.'' This is far from being the total profit because a considerable percentage of the returns were reinvested.This ratio between foreign investments and the profits reaped from these investments reveals an extraordinarily important feature of the present migration of capital, a feature characterising the export of capital as parasitism not even squared, as Lenin described it half a century ago, but cubed.
In the economically less developed countries that have shaken off the yoke of colonialism, foreign investments continue to suck the vital juices needed for the eradication of the bitter heritage of the past. For these countries the preservation of capitalist relations is tantamount to the perpetuation of backwardness. Yet the only way these countries can strengthen their national freedom and independence is by waging a persevering and determined struggle to abolish their age-old technological and economic backwardness.
The inhumanity of modern capitalism manifests itself in the fact that the monopolies use the benefits of technological progress not for the abolition of poverty and hunger in huge areas of the world but, on the contrary, to perpetuate these evils.
In a research on this problem a bourgeois economist, who has for many years worked in specialised UN agencies dealing with questions of economic aid to less developed countries, drew the conclusion that the economically developed countries were growing richer and the backward countries were becoming correspondingly poorer.^^*^^ According to his data, in the 1950s the economically less developed countries received 30,000 million dollars in all forms of so-called ``aid'' and also as foreign investments, while in only 1955-- _-_-_
~^^*^^ R. Calder, Two-Way Passage, London, 1964, p. 11.
141 1960 the fall of the prices of their commodities brought them a loss amounting to 20,000 million dollars.^^*^^Two unequal forces are clashing in the raw materials market of the capitalist world. The buyers are monopolies using modern technologies and possessing colossal economic and financial means, while the sellers of raw materials are economically and technologically weak producers. Taking advantage of its economic power, the finance capital of the imperialist states imposes a non-equivalent exchange on the economically less developed countries.
The gap between the prices of raw materials and the prices of manufactured goods is used by the monopolies of the imperialist states for pillaging the less developed countries. Falling prices for raw materials over the past few years have gravely affected the economic position of countries whose economy is founded on the export of one or two kinds of agricultural raw materials (coffee, cocoa-beans, wool, rubber, and so on). In 1955--1960, according to the UN Economic Commission for Latin America, the countries of that continent lost 7,300 million dollars through the drop of prices for their export raw materials as compared with 1950--1955, while the net import of foreign capital over the same period amounted to 7,700 million dollars.
The imperialists and their ``learned'' and unlearned servitors speak of the further widening of the gulf between the highly developed and economically less developed countries. The following is an example of this sort of ``forecast''. In collaboration with Anthony J. Wiener, Hermann Kahn, recently a ``military analyst" of the RAND Corporation and now the director of the Hudson Institute, wrote a book entitled The Year 2000. According to the estimates of Kahn and Wiener, in the year 2000 the US national product will amount to 3,231,000 million dollars, while the gross national product of India will come to only 266,000 million dollars-; in terms of per head of the population, the USA will have 10,000 dollars and India only 266 dollars.
The people in the developing countries see with increasing clarity that only a rupture with the capitalist economic system and non-capitalist development will enable them to win economic independence, put an end to age-old backwardness and poverty and achieve social progress.
_-_-_~^^*^^ R. Calder, Two-Way Passage, p. 165.
142The developing countries are facing difficult tasks and problems, and many trials lie ahead of them. The colonial enslavers of yesterday are not idle. They are worming their way into the former colonies, weaving intrigues, organising provocations and using military force against peoples fighting for or defending their independence. In their tremendous struggle for full and genuine liberation, national rejuvenation and social justice the peoples of the developing countries have an inextinguishable beacon and powerful mainstay in the world socialist system and a reliable compass in the teaching of Marxism-Leninism.
Finance capital has become interwoven to a huge extent during the past few decades both within individual countries and on an international scale. The growth of the international interlacing of monopoly capital is expressed chiefly by the increased migration of capital between the industrially developed countries. Along with the export of capital to economically backward areas of the capitalist world, increasing importance is acquired by the export of capital from one highly developed country to another. This concerns the export of capital from all countries, particularly the foreign investments of the US monopolies.
A most striking form of the internationalisation of economic life, the migration of capital between the highly developed countries is the source of the growing antagonisms in the capitalist world.
The law governing this migration manifested itse'lf during the early period of imperialism and its substance is the inherent aspiration of the monopolies to seize control not only of the home but also of the world market. The emergence of the monopolies beyond their national markets and the formation of international associations of monopolists ushered in a new and higher stage of the world-wide concentration of capital and production as embodied by the super-monopolies.
Throughout the past half-century the international monopolies have played an enormous and truly sinister role in the economy and politics of the capitalist world. Suffice it to recall their feverish activity in the period between the two world wars, when they inspired policies that ultimately led to the outbreak of the Second World War. After the war the world-wide concentration of capital and production made further considerable headway. A feature of the modern 143 methods of dividing the capitalist world among the monopoly groups is the broad development of the state-monopoly forms of this division. These state-monopoly forms of dividing markets take the shape of individual economic blocs that are being set up under the signboard of integration. The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was followed by the formation of the Euratom and then the European Economic Community (Common Market). The European Free Trade Association (EFTA), consisting of seven countries, was set up as a rival group. The functioning of these blocs irrefutably proves that the modern forms of the economic division of markets and the activity of the international monopolies signify not a blunting or smoothing down of inter-imperialist contradictions but, on the contrary, a further intensification and exacerbation of these contradictions.
The imperialist integration of Western Europe intensifies the rivalry between the monopoly octopuses of the Common Market Six. Various conflicts and clashes are maturing or have already erupted in the extended market of the European Economic Community. The formation of closed economic blocs of West European countries signifies, to use Lenin's words, the creation of cartels of imperialists who find themselves in a state of economic war with the monopoly capital groups in other sectors of the capitalist world market.
New forms of international monopolies engendered by external and internal changes have become widespread since the Second World War. The rise and development of the world socialist system and the downfall of colonialism have sharply narrowed capitalism's possibility of developing in breadth, although it still retains the possibility of developing in depth. The scientific and technological revolution and the development of large-serial and mass production determine the most profitable size of enterprises which only the financially most powerful corporations or monopoly associations are capable of building. Reaching beyond national frontiers these associations set up enterprises collectively owned by the monopolies of a number of countries.
At the same time, the increased competition in the world capitalist market and the currency, foreign trade and other measures taken by the bourgeois states are inducing the monopolies to set up enterprises directly in the marketing 144 areas. This has given rise to such widespread forms of international monopolies as patent agreements, and associations set up to co-ordinate production programmes, assemble equipment, exchange experience and know-how, devise new methods to combat the competition of substitutes, and so forth. All this is leading to the appearance of international monopolies founded on the integration of capital of different states operating enterprises in many countries and producing huge masses of commodities which are sold in the world capitalist market.
Throughout the past few decades the Communist Party of the Soviet Union has been unremittingly exposing the aggressive character of imperialism and its piratical policies that inevitably lead to military gambles. It has warned the Soviet people and the working people of the world of the threat of armed conflicts and military catastrophes stemming from the intrigues of imperialism and its predatory ambitions. It has explained that the threat of war becomes particularly great during economic crises and upheavals, when monopoly capital seeks an outlet from economic and socioeconomic difficulties on the path of adventurism and war. In the resolution adopted by the Fourteenth Party Conference in 1925 it was noted that ``bourgeois Europe is pregnant with new imperialist wars'', inasmuch as the ``economic contradictions which led to the first imperialist war of 1914-- 1918 have not been resolved and cannot be resolved save by a world proletarian revolution''.^^*^^ At subsequent Party congresses and conferences and at CC plenary meetings, the CPSU repeatedly exposed the imperialist plans for wars of aggrandisement and called upon the peoples to display unflagging vigilance and frustrate these plans.
At the Fifteenth Party Congress, held in 1927, it was put on record that the threat of war, particularly of war against the USSR, was increasing as a result of the aggravation of the principal contradictions within the world capitalist system and between the capitalist world and the USSR. Further, in the Congress resolution it was pointed out that the shift of the centre of world capitalism to the USA and the aggravation of the contradictions of European capitalism, the impoverishment of the masses and the narrowing down of the internal market ``are bringing closer _-_-_
~^^*^^ The CPSU in Resolutions..., Vol. II, Russ. ed., p. 165.
__PRINTERS_P_144_COMMENT__ 10---2635 145 and making inevitable an attempt at a new redivision of the globe between the imperialist vultures and new armed conflicts and military catastrophes''.^^*^^The Sixteenth Party Congress, which was held in 1930 when world capitalism was being shaken by a deep and acute crisis, noted in its resolution that the ``crisis in the capitalist countries and the powerful upsurge of socialist construction in the USSR are increasing the military aggressiveness of the imperialist cliques against the USSR, but are at the same time accelerating the revolutionisation of the masses and, consequently, strengthening the organisation of proletarian forces guarding the country of the proletarian dictatorship''.^^**^^
Although the aggressive character of imperialism has remained immutable, the situation in the world has undergone a fundamental change during the past few decades. Today, when imperialism has irrevocably lost its supremacy over the majority of mankind, when powerful forces of peace, democracy and socialism capable of curbing the imperialist aggressors have appeared in the world, there is a real possibility of averting another world war, which in view of the present-day development of armaments would, if it were to break out, be the greatest disaster ever to strike mankind.
The experience gained by the world revolutionary movement and the far-reaching social transformations of the present epoch are summed up in the Main Document adopted by the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties: ``Imperialism can neither regain its lost historical initiative nor reverse world development. The main direction of mankind's development is determined by the world socialist system, the international working class, all revolutionary forces."^^***^^
The principal threat of war comes from the aggressive policies pursued by the US ruling class and nourished by the plans of the US monopolies to establish world hegemony. During and immediately after the Second World War, when the US monopolists believed that there was no force in the _-_-_
~^^*^^ The CPSU in Resolutions,.., Vol. II, Russ. ed., p. 447.
~^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. Ill, p. 33.
~^^***^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 13.
146 world capable of opposing their claims to unrestricted hegemony, their agents proclaimed that the ``leadership'' of the world was the principal aim and ``historical mission" of US foreign policy. They maintained that like the Pax Romana of antiquity and the Pax Britannica in Europe in the 19th century, the day of Pax Americana had come. The further course of events wrought havoc with the illusions of the US monopolies and their plans for world domination. The changes that took place in the world, particularly the radical shift in the balance of forces between socialism and capitalism, convinced United States politicians with any common sense at all that the calculations for world domination were quite unrealistic.It would be a mistake, however, to believe that plans for world hegemony by the US monopolies have been shelved. They continue to underlie the aggressive policy of US imperialism.
The aggressive character of imperialism is linked with the militarisation of the economy of the capitalist states. The growing allocations for armaments are glaring evidence of the parasitism and decay of capitalism. US imperialism is leading the arms race. Since 1949, the year the aggressive North Atlantic bloc (NATO) was formed by the USA, the countries belonging to that bloc have spent nearly 1,300,000 million dollars on armaments. In 1969 alone these unproductive expenditures exceeded 100,000 million dollars. In the Soviet Government Statement, issued in connection with NATO's 20th anniversary, it is pointed out that the arms race forced on the world by NATO is being whipped up by long-term programmes of developing increasingly more destructive and expensive weapons jointly and singly by the NATO countries.^^*^^
While nurturing plans for world hegemony, the US imperialists are seeking to establish undivided rule chiefly in the capitalist world. But this ambition is coming up against resistance from other countries of the imperialist camp.
``US monopoly capital,'' it is stated in the Programme of the CPSU, ``gorged on war profits and the arms race, has seized the most important sources of raw materials, the markets and the spheres of investment, has built up a unique _-_-_
~^^*^^ Izvestia No. 86, 1969.
__PRINTERS_P_147_COMMENT__ 10* 147 kind of colonial empire and become the biggest international exploiter. Taking cover behind spurious professions of freedom and democracy, US imperialism is in effect performing the function of world gendarme, supporting reactionary dictatorial regimes and decayed monarchies, opposing democratic, revolutionary changes and launching aggressions against peoples fighting for independence.''^^*^^Characterising the present situation in the capitalist world, the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties noted that the uneven economic development of the imperialist countries was growing more pronounced, that a struggle for spheres of influence was inevitable between them, that competition was growing in industry and trade, that the conflicts in currency-financial relations were growing more acute and that inter-- imperialist rivalry was mounting in the pursuit for markets and monopoly profits. The deepening of the economic contradictions is accompanied by crises and internal strife, which have become the lot of the aggressive blocs, chiefly of NATO. All this inevitably weakens the world imperialist system.
At the same time, in conditions of intensified struggle between the two world systems, with the basic contradiction between them growing deeper, the capitalist powers are seeking to unite their efforts with the aim of preserving and strengthening the exploiting system. ``Each imperialist power pursues its own aims. At the same time, together they form the chain of the world system of imperialism.''^^**^^
Guided by adventurist plans of dominating the world, the aggressive circles of US imperialism are pursuing a policy threatening the world with a thermonuclear catastrophe.
But this does not mean that another world war is inevitable. Imperialism's sphere of rule is steadily shrinking. The balance of forces between socialism and capitalism is such that capitalism can no longer count on gaining the upper hand over socialism. ``The balance of forces in the world,'' states the resolution adopted by the Twenty-Third Congress of the CPSU on the report of the Central Committee, ``keeps changing in favour of socialism, the working-class and the _-_-_
~^^*^^ The Road to Communism, p. 476.
~^^**^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 18.
148 national liberation movement.''^^*^^ Unity among the forces desiring peace can curb the aggressive circles hatching out plans for another war. The forces of peace with socialism as their backbone are powerful enough to compel the imperialists to abandon war and accept a policy of peaceful coexistence of the two systems.The Main Document adopted by the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties stresses that the defence of peace is inseparably linked with the struggle to compel the imperialists to accept peaceful coexistence of states with different systems. Peaceful coexistence implies the sovereignty, equality and territorial inviolability of each state, and non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. This policy demands respect for the right of every nation freely to choose its own socio-economic and political system, and the settlement of outstanding issues by political means, through negotiation.
The Document gives a comprehensive picture of the policy of peaceful coexistence. This policy does not contravene the right of the oppressed peoples to fight for liberation in any way they find necessary---by armed or peaceful struggle. Every people has the indisputable right to defend itself with arms against encroachment by imperialist aggressors, and to support for its just cause from other peoples.
Further, peaceful coexistence implies neither the preservation of the social and political status quo nor the relaxation of the ideological struggle. It facilitates the class struggle against imperialism on a national and global scale. Being directed against warmongers, reactionaries and armament barons ``this policy meets the general interests of the revolutionary struggle against every form of oppression and exploitation, and promotes friendship between all peoples and the development of fruitful economic, scientific, technological and other spheres of co-operation between countries with different social systems in the interests of social progress''.^^**^^
The Appeal in Defence of Peace unanimously passed at the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties states: ``The consistent peace policy of the first _-_-_
~^^*^^ 23rd Congress of the CPSU, p. 286.
~^^**^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, pp. 31--32.
149 socialist country---the Soviet Union---and other socialist states, the intensification of the working people's struggle in the capitalist countries, the growth of the national liberation movement, and action by broad circles of world democratic opinion and by peace fighters remove the fatal inevitability of another world war and create a real possibility for effectuating the striving of the peoples for peace.''^^*^^A vital element for effective resistance to the aggressive ambitions and criminal actions of imperialism is the cohesion of all anti-imperialist forces and, chiefly, the unity of the international communist movement, which heads the struggle of the peoples against imperialism. The world socialist system is the main barrier to imperialism, and the intrigues of the imperialist aggressors are spearheaded at it. For that reason the defence of socialism is the internationalist duty of Communists.
The forces combating imperialism emphatically denounce the divisive activities of the present, leadership of the Communist Party of China, which, having abandoned the principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, has embarked on a chauvinistic and adventurist policy hostile to the world socialist system, the international communist and working-class movement and the national liberation movement. The disruptive activities of the Mao Tsetung group, its anti-Marxist, anti-Leninist stand on basic contemporary problems, and its shameless anti-Soviet policy which goes to the extent of organising armed provocations on the Soviet-Chinese frontier are rendering a large service to the forces of world imperialism and inspiring the hawks to new adventures.
__*_*_*__Capitalism has evolved into a monstrous obstacle to social development. Ours is an age witnessing the colossal growth of the productive forces and unparalleled scientific and technological development. And, as the Programme of the CPSU points out, capitalism alone is responsible for the fact _-_-_
~^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 48.
150 that this age has not yet put an end to the poverty of hundreds of millions of people and has not brought an abundance of material and cultural blessings to the entire population of our planet. Hence the incontestable conclusion:``The growing conflict between productive forces and production relations imperatively demands that mankind should break the decayed capitalist shell, release the powerful productive forces created by man and use them for the good of society as a whole.''^^*^^
_-_-_~^^*^^ The Road to Communism, p. 451.
[151] __ALPHA_LVL1__ FURTHER DEVELOPMENTN.V.Tropkin
__NOTE__ Author(s) is (are) above LVL in original.Lenin held that no existing theory, conclusion or proposition was final. Time and again he cited the statement of Marx and Engels that Marxism was not a dogma but a guide to action. Revolutionary theory studying the laws of social progress and the experience of the class struggle cannot help but advance together with the development of society itself and with the changes that take place in the conditions and forms of the class struggle. More, Lenin never regarded his own theoretical conclusions as being a totality of immutable, eternal truths. He was a most determined champion of a creative approach to theory and considered that theory had to be developed, enlarged on and specified in accordance with the changing historical conditions.
Completely in line with Lenin's tenets, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union develops the Leninist theory of socialist revolution and Marxism-Leninism as a whole by analysing and summing up the vast experience of revolutionary transformations in the USSR and other socialist countries and also the experience of the contemporary liberation movement. An exceedingly valuable contribution towards the enrichment of the theory of socialist revolution is made by each of the fraternal Communist and Workers' Parties and the world communist movement collectively.
The decisions of the leading organs of the CPSU---its congresses and conferences, and plenary meetings of its Central Committee---are vivid examples of the creative development of this theory. The theory of socialist revolution 152 has been further enriched in the Programme of the CPSU adopted at the Twenty-Second Congress of the CPSU. Along with other Communist and Workers' Parties, the CPSU has participated in drawing up key documents of the contemporary international communist movement: the Declaration of the 1957 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties of the Socialist Countries, the Statement of the 1960 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties and the documents of the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties.
On the basis of a Marxist-Leninist analysis of the economic and political situation in the world of socialism and capitalism, the alignment of the class forces in the capitalist countries and in the world as a whole, and the modern experience of the class struggle, these documents sum up and enlarge on the propositions of the Leninist theory of socialist revolution---on the complete and final triumph of socialism; the general laws and specifics of the proletarian revolution and socialist reforms; the main forces of the present-day world revolutionary process; the world socialist system as the mainstay of the world revolutionary movement; the expansion of the social basis of the modern liberation struggle and the decisive importance of unity of all the anti-- imperialist forces; the relationship between the struggle for democracy and the struggle for socialism; the unity of the national and international tasks of the working class; the multiformity of the socialist revolution; the utilisation of parliament by the working class to secure the triumph of the socialist revolution; modern strategy and tactics of the Communist Parties; the evolution of the national liberation into socialist revolutions; non-capitalist development; the link between the struggle for peace and the struggle for socialism.
The proposition on the complete and final triumph of socialism strikingly illustrates the development of the Leninist theory of socialist revolution by the CPSU.
One of the theoretical pillars of the strategy and tactics of Leninism is Lenin's brilliant prevision that socialism can triumph in one country taken separately. It substantiates not only the possibility of power being seized by the proletariat in individual countries but also the possibility of building socialism in countries where the socialist revolution has been accomplished. After the victorious socialist revolution it steers the working class not towards passive 153 waiting for the spread of the proletarian revolution to other countries but towards the most energetic building of socialism. For that reason it may definitely be said that the proposition on the complete and final triumph of socialism specifies, continues and further enriches the Leninist theory of socialist revolution.
The Party upheld this proposition in the decisions of its Fourteenth Conference in April 1925, in a bitter struggle against the Trotskyites who maintained that socialism could not be built in backward Russia without ``state aid" from technologically and economically developed countries and that a ``genuine upsurge of the socialist economy will become possible in our country only after the proletariat is victorious in the leading European countries''.^^*^^
The Conference scathingly denounced the Trotskyite fabrications dooming the proletariat of the USSR to passive waiting for the world revolution, and the Bukharin ``theory'', which sought to head the Party towards capitulation to capitalist elements in the country and to the loss of the gains of the October Revolution.
Guided by Lenin's tenets, the Conference declared that the complete triumph of socialism implied chiefly the establishment of correct class relations within the country, mainly the relations between the working class and the working peasants, the surmounting of class antagonisms by liquidating the exploiting classes, the total replacement of capitalist by socialist relations of production and the building up of a socialist economy. The final triumph of socialism means creating an international situation in which the socialist country would be guaranteed against the restoration of capitalism. This could only be attained by putting an end to the capitalist encirclement as a result of the victory of the proletariat in several countries.
In the decisions of the Fourteenth Party Conference it is stated that ``the victory of socialism (not in the sense of a final victory) is unquestionably possible in one country"^^**^^ and, therefore, ``the Party of the proletariat must bend every effort to build a socialist society in the confidence that this undertaking will most certainly be successful if the country is safeguarded against all attempts at restoring capitalism. _-_-_
~^^*^^ The CPSU in Resolutions..., Part II, 7th Russ. ed., 1954, p. 169.
~^^**^^ Ibid., p. 168.
154 In other words, by pursuing a correct policy towards the peasantry within the country and in its international relations the Party will surmount all the difficulties deriving from the slowing down of the rate of the world revolution''.^^*^^Seeing socialist construction as the internationalist revolutionary duty of the Soviet people, the Conference called on the Soviet proletariat ``boldly and resolutely to build socialism today, remembering that our Revolution is itself part of the world revolution and that our successes in building a socialist economy are in themselves a major factor of the growth of the world proletarian revolution''.^^**^^
Led by the Communist Party and surrounded on all sides by imperialist vultures, the Soviet people in the main built socialism by the mid-1930s. Socialism became a reality in the Soviet Union and mankind received ``a socialist society that is a reality and a science of socialist construction tested in practice''.^^***^^
The complete triumph of socialism was achieved in the USSR; but it was not a final triumph as long as there was a capitalist encirclement giving rise to the threat of imperialist intervention and the restoration of capitalism.
No capitalist encirclement exists today. There are two world social systems: dying capitalism and young and swiftly advancing socialism, to which the future belongs. No force exists in the world today that can crush world socialism. Of course, the Soviet Union is not guaranteed against imperialist attack. The danger of aggression will remain as long as imperialism exists. For that reason the Soviet Union cannot help but devote paramount attention to the further strengthening of its powerful armed forces. But it is quite obvious that today the imperialists cannot so much as dream of the restoration of capitalism in the USSR.
The Twenty-First Congress of the CPSU proclaimed that the Soviet Union had entered a new period of historical development. ``Socialism,'' states the resolution adopted by that Congress, ``has triumphed completely and finally in the Soviet Union. The time has passed when the Soviet Union was the only socialist country and was encircled by hostile capitalist states. No forces exist in the world which could restore capitalism in the Soviet Union and crush the _-_-_
~^^*^^ The CPSU in Resolutions. .., Part II, Russ. ed., p. 170.
~^^**^^ Ibid.
~^^***^^ The Road to Communism, p. 463.
155 socialist camp.''^^*^^ ``The formation of the world socialist system and the growth of the Soviet Union's economic and defence might brought about a change in the world balance of forces in favour of socialism. Socialism has won once and for all in the USSR, and our country is fully guaranteed against the restoration of capitalism.''^^**^^Along with the Soviet Union, all the other socialist countries have been delivered from the threat of capitalist restoration. This is reiterated in the (Statement of the 1960 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties: ``Today the restoration of capitalism has been made socially and economically impossible not only in the Soviet Union, but in the other socialist countries as well. The combined forces of the socialist camp reliably safeguard every socialist country against encroachments by imperialist reaction."^^***^^
It thus follows that the problem of the final triumph of socialism has been solved in all the socialist countries. As distinct from the Soviet Union, where its solution was preceded by the achievement of the complete triumph of socialism, in the other socialist countries, by virtue of the fact that they are building socialism together, as a community, the final triumph of socialism has been achieved before the complete triumph. This provides extremely favourable external conditions for socialist construction.
A considerable contribution to the theory of socialist revolution has been made by the collective thought of the international communist movement, which enlarged on Lenin's proposition on the general laws and specifics of the socialist revolution.
In addition to general, basic laws, the socialist revolutions accomplished in various countries have, as we all know, their own specific features. The reason for this is that basically the conditions of the class struggle of the proletariat in different capitalist countries have much in common, but differ in details. While similar conditions give rise to the main, general laws of the socialist revolution, the local features determine the different forms and rate of the proletarian revolution and socialist reforms.
_-_-_~^^*^^ Extraordinary 21st Congress of the CPSU, Verbatim Report, Moscow, 1959, Russ. ed., p. 443.
~^^**^^ 50th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, pp. 24--25.
~^^***^^ the Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, p. 47.
156The common features of the transition of different countries from capitalism to socialism are called forth by the social similarity of the countries accomplishing this transition, of their class structure and the conditions under which the proletariat achieves its liberation, and also by the character of the main contradictions (between social production and the private form of capitalist appropriation, between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie), which can only be solved by the socialist revolution.
As a result of extensive research the CPSU and the fraternal Parties of the socialist countries clearly defined the common laws of revolution and socialist construction operating in countries accomplishing the transition from capitalism to socialism. These laws were formulated as follows in the Declaration of the 1957 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties of the Socialist Countries: ``... guidance of the working masses by the working class, the core of which is the Marxist-Leninist Party, in effecting a proletarian revolution in one form or another and establishing one form or another of the dictatorship of the proletariat; the alliance of the working class and the bulk of the peasantry and other sections of the working people; the abolition of capitalist ownership and the establishment of public ownership of the basic means of production; gradual socialist reconstruction of agriculture; planned development of the national economy aimed at building socialism and communism, at raising the standard of living of the working people; the carrying out of the socialist revolution in the sphere of ideology and culture and the creation of a numerous intelligentsia devoted to the working class, the working people and the cause of socialism; the abolition of national oppression and the establishment of equality and fraternal friendship among peoples; defence of the achievements of socialism against attacks by external and internal enemies; solidarity of the working class of the country concerned with the working class of other countries, that is, proletarian internationalism.''^^*^^
Naturally, the general laws of the proletarian revolution presuppose, furthermore, the break-up of the bourgeois state machine, the disbandment of the bourgeois state apparatus and its replacement by a new, proletarian, socialist _-_-_
~^^*^^ The Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, p. 14.
157 apparatus. The experience of all the socialist revolutions has shown that the abolition of bourgeois statehood and its replacement by a socialist state may proceed in different ways and that the speed of this process may differ. But it is quite obvious that the state apparatus inherited from the bourgeoisie cannot serve the cause of socialism. The working class cannot effect socialist changes and ensure the defence of socialist gains against internal and external enemies without setting up its own proletarian state as a powerful weapon of the proletarian dictatorship.Underscoring the general character of these laws, the Communist and Workers' Parties insist on their creative application and warn against attempts to obliterate diversity in the policy and tactics of the revolutionary proletariat and ignore the specific conditions of the liberation struggle in the different countries. In this they follow the line laid down by Lenin, who always required that Communists skilfully and correctly apply the Marxist principles depending on the obtaining conditions. Guided by Lenin's precepts, the Communist and Workers' Parties hold that one of their cardinal tasks is to bring the forms and methods of applying the general principles of the proletarian revolution and socialist construction in their respective countries into line with international and internal conditions.
In each country effecting the socialist revolution the general laws manifest themselves in their own way, depending chiefly on the specifics of the class struggle in that country. Let us enlarge on this point. The principal specific conditions are: natural conditions (for example, fertility of the soil, mineral wealth, geographical position); level of economic and political development (this level may differ on account of the uneven economic and political development of the capitalist countries); the character of the state power (although the substance of the bourgeois state is always the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the form in which the bourgeoisie exercises its dictatorship---republic, militarypolice dictatorship, constitutional monarchy, fascist despotism, and so on, and also the strength of the military-- bureaucratic apparatus are highly important for the revolutionary proletariat); the class structure and the alignment of class forces in the country (economic systems, the numerical strength of the different classes, political parties and the character of the relationship between them and their 158 influence over the masses); the historical traditions of the masses (chiefly revolutionary and parliamentary, attachment of the peasants to private ownership, the strength of religious beliefs and the influence of the church) and the political experience accumulated by them; national features (national and ethnical composition of the population, character of national and ethnical relationships, existence of colonial or colonialist survivals, and so on); level of organisation and political maturity of the proletariat, its concentration at large enterprises and at key economic centres in the country; strength of the bourgeoisie, the extent of its resistance, and its ability to manoeuvre, deceive the masses and influence them; the international situation (international forces and developments favouring or opposing the socialist revolution); proximity of the country to the main centres of reaction or international bulwarks of the liberation movement (it is known, for example, how adversely the revolutionary movement of the Latin American peoples is affected by their proximity to the USA and their remoteness from the socialist countries).
All these factors affect the maturing, rates and forms of the socialist revolution and socialist transformations. Moreover, the uneven economic and political development of capitalism determines changes in the development of these factors and their impact on the class struggle, thereby accentuating still further the diversity of the conditions under which the class struggle is waged in different countries.
The Communist Parties consider that one of their most important tasks is to study most thoroughly the specific features and concrete conditions of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat in their respective countries. Without this it is impossible to chart the correct strategy and tactics of the proletarian revolution and successfully lead the class struggle of the proletariat, because each Communist Party takes shape, develops and operates on the national soil of its own country. It can, therefore, become the leading national political force and take over the state leadership of society only if in its revolutionary activity it gives every consideration to the national specifics of the conditions of the class struggle in its country and, in accordance with them, works out the ways and means of implementing the general principles of the transition to socialism.
159Communists reject any attempt to ignore specific features or to exaggerate their significance. While disregard of these features dooms the Party to sectarian isolation from the masses and to a dogmatic rupture with living reality, exaggeration of the role of specific features inevitably leads to a revisionist rejection of the general principles of the proletarian revolution, to national narrowness, to nationalism, to an incorrect understanding of the question of combining in politics the principles of socialist internationalism with socialist patriotism, and to nationalistic deviations. Experience teaches that success attends only those Communist Parties which combine unshakable fidelity to general MarxistLeninist principles of the proletarian revolution with a knowledge of national specifics and the ability to take them into account in the practical revolutionary struggle.
The problem of enlarging the social basis of the presentday liberation struggle is dealt with in the decisions of the Twentieth and Twenty-Third congresses of the CPSU, the Programme of the CPSU and documents of international meetings of Communist and Workers' Parties. This is an indisputable contribution to Lenin's theory of socialist revolution.
One of the key propositions of Marxism-Leninism states that the popular masses are the real makers of history. As Lenin wrote, ``the only effective force that compels change is popular revolutionary energy''.^^*^^ The entire activity of the Communist and Workers' Parties is permeated with the most profound faith in the gigantic revolutionary strength of the working class, and in the enormous revolutionary potential of the peasants and the other sections of working people. The Communist Parties set their sights on awakening the creative strength of the working people, facilitating the fullest and most effective manifestation of popular revolutionary energy, drawing the largest possible number of people into the liberation struggle, making this struggle organised and purposeful, forming the masses into revolutionary armies and directing them along the shortest route to the great goal of destroying all forms of exploitation and oppression of man by man and attaining the ideals of scientific communism.
The success of the revolutionary struggle is determined _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 213.
160 chiefly by the extent the popular masses participate in it. The question of the social basis of the socialist revolution, of the classes and social strata desiring socialist reforms is, therefore, of paramount importance.An analysis of the alignment of the class forces in the world and in the capitalist countries has brought the CPSU and the fraternal Parties to the conclusion that today the working class can lead considerably larger sections of the population than ever before in the struggle for peace, democracy and socialism, because the social basis of the contemporary revolutionary process has grown substantially. It is quite evident that one can speak of the enlargement of the social basis in the broad sense, having in mind the social forces of the entire world revolutionary movement, and in the narrow sense, having in mind the social basis of the socialist revolution in individual countries.
The development of the world revolutionary process, the achievements of the socialist countries, the upsurge of the working-class movement in the capitalist countries, the downfall of the colonial system of imperialism, the active participation of the former colonial peoples in the liberation struggle, the integration of the struggle for democracy with the struggle for socialism and the deepening general crisis of capitalism are fundamentally changing the conditions for the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat in the world as a whole and in individual countries.
In our epoch, which is witnessing the rapid consolidation of socialism, the scientific and technological revolution, huge popular movements and national liberation wars of an unparalleled scale, more and more formerly passive social strata are becoming politically active. The revolutionary movement is being joined by new sections of the proletariat, millions of peasants, urban middle strata, intellectuals and students, and new social forces are being drawn into the liberation movement. These far-reaching changes in the alignment of the class forces in the world are enhancing the influence of Communists among the working masses and facilitating the formation of the political army for the struggle for socialism.
This is accompanied by the increasing isolation of the bourgeoisie, by the steady loss of its influence over the people. The weakening of the bourgeoisie's social positions cannot but make the coming victory of the working class easier. As the 1969 International Meeting of Communrst and __PRINTERS_P_161_COMMENT__ 11---2635 161 Workers' Parties noted, the ``convergence of interests of the working class, farmers, urban middle strata and intellectuals, as well as their growing co-operation reduce the social foundations of monopoly power, sharpen its internal contradictions and promote the mobilisation of broad masses of people for the struggle against monopolies and imperialism''.^^*^^
Social and economic inequality is growing more pronounced. Monopoly oppression is becoming increasingly more unendurable for all strata of the population. ``The social gulf between the handful of top monopolies and the huge masses of the working class and all other working people,'' L. I. Brezhnev declared at the Meeting, ``continues to grow wider.~"^^**^^
The objective prerequisites are forming for uniting different strata of the population---the working class, the peasantry, intellectuals, and the urban petty and middle bourgeoisie---for the struggle against monopoly rule. ``All the main sections of a nation,'' it is pointed out in the Programme of the CPSU, ``have a vital interest in abolishing the unlimited power of the monopolies. This makes it possible to unite all the democratic movements opposing the oppression of the finance oligarchy in a mighty anti-monopoly torrent.''^^***^^
The growth of the antagonism between the handful of monopolists and the rest of the population of the capitalist countries is further enlarging the mass basis of the liberation struggle.
This gives rise to unprecedentedly favourable conditions for enhancing the influence of the revolutionary proletariat in society, for successfully implementing the tactics of a broad anti-imperialist front, for uniting broad sections of the people round that front and for forming the political army of fighters for socialism.
Utilising these favourable conditions, the working class is drawing new sections of the population into the revolutionary movement. ``Other social strata opposing monopoly oppression---the bulk of the peasants and the intelligentsia--- are rallying more closely round the working class,'' states _-_-_
~^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, pp. 25--26.
~^^**^^ Ibid., p. 143.
~^^***^^ The Road to Communism, p. 483.
162 the report of the CC CPSU to the Twenty-Third Congress of the CPSU. ``A broad anti-monopoly front is being formed. This process promotes closer unity of the people and stimulates their struggle for the ultimate goal---for the revolutionary transformation of society, for socialism.''^^*^^The conclusion drawn by the CPSU and other Communist Parties that the social foundation of the contemporary revolutionary struggle is growing larger is of immense importance to Marxist-Leninist theory and the practical work of Communists. Substantially supplementing Lenin's theory of socialist revolution, this conclusion brings many principles of this theory and the strategy and tactics of the Communist Parties into conformity with present-day conditions. For example, taking the enlargement of the mass foundation of the socialist revolution into account, the Communist Parties of the capitalist countries are setting themselves the task of winning over not only the majority of the working class but the majority of the nation.
In order to unite the revolutionary forces for the struggle against imperialism it is of the utmost importance to close the split in the working class of the capitalist countries and form a united working-class front. Pointing out this vital circumstance, the decision of the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU on the report of the Central Committee stated: ``It is of immense importance ... to surmount the split in the working-class movement and establish contact between the Communist Parties and the Socialists and also other parties really desiring to defend the peace, fight imperialist oppression and uphold the national interests of their peoples, democracy and independence.''^^**^^
Emphasising the decisive significance of unity of the working class, the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties came out ``in favour of co-operation with the Socialists and Social-Democrats to establish an advanced democratic regime today and to build a socialist society in the future''.^^***^^ Indispensable conditions for such co-operation are the renunciation by the Socialists of the _-_-_
~^^*^^ 23rd Congress of the CPSU, p. 23.
~^^**^^ 20th Congress of the CPSU, Verbatim Report, Part II, 1956, Russ. ed., p. 412.
~^^***^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 24.
__PRINTERS_P_164_COMMENT__ 11* 163 policy of class co-operation and an effective struggle for peace, democracy and socialism.This by no means implies a belittlement of the leading role of the Communist Party in the dictatorship of the proletariat. Experience shows that co-operation with the Socialist and other parties in the struggle for the victory of the socialist revolution and the building of socialism does not clash with the fact that the leading role is played by the Communist Party.
Lenin's proposition on the diversity of the political forms of transition from capitalism to socialism is enlarged on in the decisions of the Twentieth Congress and in the Programme of the CPSU, and also in a number of documents of the fraternal Parties. This is an important contribution to the theory of socialist revolution.
The vitality of this proposition has been demonstrated by the experience gained by the socialist countries. The revolutionary initiative of the working class has brought to life such forms of the socialist reconstruction of society as the Soviet and people's democratic systems. The Mongolian People's Republic, which, following the victory of the antiimperialist, anti-feudal revolution, took the road of noncapitalist development and accomplished the transition from feudalism directly to socialism, differs essentially from many other, particularly European socialist countries.
An important conclusion drawn by the CPSU is that in future the forms of transition to socialism will be even more diversified than today. Adopted by the world communist movement this conclusion is recorded in the policy documents drawn up by international meetings of Communist and Workers' Parties. It has been borne out by the Cuban revolution, which gave birth to a new form of transition to socialism differing in many ways from the Soviet and people's democratic forms. It is to be expected that other forms of transition to socialism will be introduced by the peoples that have won political independence and taken the noncapitalist road of development.
It goes without saying that the proposition on the diversity of the forms of transition to socialism bears a direct relation to peaceful and non-peaceful and also to a combination of peaceful and violent ways of establishing proletarian power. But under every form of transition, its essence is the socialist revolution and the establishment of the 164 dictatorship of the proletariat and presupposes a persevering struggle by the working masses for the transfer of power into the hands of the working class.
The founders of Marxism-Leninism noted that the forms of the proletarian revolution preferable for the working class are those that open the road to the peaceful seizure of power, without armed uprisings, civil wars, or armed intervention from without. However, they did not omit to emphasise that the possibilities for such forms were extremely rare and that in all cases the proletariat had to be prepared for an armed struggle.
There was very little likelihood for a peaceful socialist revolution until the world socialist system came into being. Wherever the proletariat rose in revolution it had to fight not only the internal counter-revolution but also foreign exporters of counter-revolution. This struggle was waged by the Paris Commune and by the socialist revolutions in Russia and Hungary. An armed struggle was therefore inevitable. It was forced on the proletariat by the internal and external counter-revolution.
Today, with the steady growth of the revolutionary forces in the capitalist countries and of the forces of socialism in the world, the internal and external counter-revolution no longer has the same possibilities for suppressing the liberation movement as it had before the Second World War.
``Together with the other Marxist-Leninist Parties,'' states the Programme of the CPSU, ``the Communist Party of the Soviet Union regards it as its internationalist duty to call on the peoples of all countries to rally, muster all internal forces, take vigorous action, and, drawing on the might of the world socialist system, forestall or firmly repel imperialist interference in the affairs of the people of any country risen in revolt, and thereby prevent the export of counter-- revolution.''^^*^^
With the further growth of the forces of socialism in the world there will undoubtedly be greater possibilities for consummating the socialist revolution peacefully. However, the proletarian Parties have still to be prepared for the nonpeaceful transition to socialism. The ruling classes will not yield their power voluntarily. They find themselves compelled to surrender it without an armed struggle only when _-_-_
~^^*^^ The Road to Communism, p. 484.
165 they see they are completely isolated from the people, when the vast majority of the population support the revolutionaries and when the counter-revolution cannot receive effective assistance from without.In each country the use or non-use of weapons in the struggle for socialism depends on internal and external conditions, chiefly on the strength of the bourgeoisie's resistance to the will of the overwhelming majority of the people. The working class does not desire capitalist rule to end in a bloodbath. But it has to be prepared for any unexpected change in the form of the struggle.
The proletariat has to learn to cope with any situation. The history of socialist revolutions teaches that in most cases the peaceful form combines with an armed struggle. That is what happened in Russia in 1917 when the peaceful revolution twice gave way to an armed struggle. Such also was the situation in Hungary in 1919, when the socialist revolution, which had started peacefully, developed into a civil war. The same was observed in the People's Democracies and in Cuba, where after the initial period of armed struggle the revolution was accomplished peacefully.
The present-day strategy and tactics of the Communist and Workers' Parties are a substantial contribution to Lenin's theory of socialist revolution.
The CPSU and the fraternal Parties have always attached the utmost importance to the science of leading the revolutionary struggle of the working class and to charting correct strategy and tactics for the proletarian class struggle. But the significance of strategy and tactics is growing immeasurably today. New forces are joining the revolutionary movement. In the world today there is no longer an oppressed nation that is not fighting for its liberation. This is enlarging the sphere for the practical employment of the strategy and tactics of Leninism. The revolutionary dynamics of life imperiously demand the summing up of the experience of revolutionary struggle and the development of strategical and tactical principles in line with the changing alignment of class forces in the world as a whole and in individual countries.
Responding to the new requirements of the liberation movement, the Communist Parties have added important propositions to their strategy and tactics: on the possibility of averting a world war, on the peaceful coexistence of 166 countries with different social systems, on combining the struggle for democracy with the struggle for socialism, on broad anti-monopoly alliances, on the national anti-- imperialist front, and so on. These propositions underlie the policies pursued by the Communist Parties. The principal aim of the present-day strategy and tactics of the world communist movement is to use favourable conditions to strengthen and unite the three main revolutionary forces of our day---the socialist community, the international working class and the national liberation movement---for the attainment of further decisive victories in the struggle against imperialism, for peace, democracy, national liberation and socialism.
True to Marxism-Leninism, the Communists of the socialist countries see their cardinal strategic task in strengthening the socialist community, moving to further economic achievements and, on the basis of these achievements, doing everything possible to hasten the victory of the revolutionary proletariat throughout the world. In the capitalist countries the Communist Parties concentrate chiefly on the struggle against monopoly rule and imperialism---they bend every effort to set up a broad anti-monopoly front embracing the broadest strata of the population and use every possibility to promote the struggle for socialism. The main aim of the strategy and tactics of the fraternal Parties in countries that are fighting for national liberation or have won political independence are: the victory of the anti-imperialist, antifeudal, democratic revolution, the unity of all anti-- imperialist forces in a broad national democratic front, and the noncapitalist road of development to socialism.
Marxists-Leninists consider that the utmost strengthening of the unity of the international communist movement and of its national contingents on the immutable foundation of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism is an indispensable condition for strategic and tactical success.
[167] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ MODERN TIMESS. L. Titarenko
__NOTE__ Author(s) is (are) above LVL in original.For more than half a century Soviet society has been developing under the leadership and guidance of the Communist Party. The impact of the work being accomplished by the CPSU ranges far beyond Soviet society. Since the Great October Socialist Revolution every more or less major event in world history has been influenced in one way or another by the CPSU's extensive and purposeful work of directing the revolutionary reconstruction of society.
Therefore, the problem of the Party has been and remains one of the most important in Marxist-Leninist science. A profound understanding of the Party's place and role in the world revolutionary process is of exceedingly great theoretical, practical and political interest.
The end goal pursued by Marx and Engels and then by Lenin was to help the working class understand its mission and learn to conduct an organised struggle for its emancipation. To achieve these aims, they taught, the proletariat has got to have its own revolutionary Party. ``In our tactics,'' Engels wrote, ``one thing is thoroughly established for all modern countries and times: to bring the workers to the point of forming their independent party, opposed to all bourgeois parties.''^^*^^
Such a Party's strength lies in its comprehension of the _-_-_
~^^*^^ Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow, 1965, p. 446. 168
168 conditions, course and general results of the proletarian movement. It is called upon to express and defend the vital interests of the workers regardless of profession or nationality, and direct their struggle towards winning political power and building a communist society.These tasks determine the principles underlying the Party's political strategy and tactics. While working to attain immediate aims, the Party safeguards the future of the proletarian movement. The Communist Party, Marx and Engels always emphasised, supports every revolutionary movement directed against the exploiting system. Its purpose is to unite the working class, educate it in the spirit of proletarian internationalism and purge it of sectarianism and nationalistic, anarchistic and other petty-bourgeois trends and currents.
This was the aim pursued by Marx and Engels in the League of Communists and then in the First International. When independent proletarian Parties began to emerge in various West European countries, the founders of scientific communism paid special attention to averting the danger of all manifestations of opportunism, which the bourgeoisie sought (as they still do) to use as a means of paralysing the revolutionary energy of the workers, uprooting the idea of the class struggle from their minds and steering them towards ``moderate'' reforms.
The more Marxism began to influence the working-class movement, the more resourceful, cunning and perfidious became its enemies. Defeated pre-Marxist socialism, Lenin pointed out, continued the struggle not on its own, independent soil, but as revisionism on the general soil of Marxism. Its spread was facilitated also by the objective situation. The revolutionary lull that set in in Europe after the Paris Commune, and the existence of bourgeois-democratic freedoms which allowed the working-class parties to function legally, win representation in the parliaments and secure some concessions for the workers from the bourgeoisie, created the illusion that capitalist society could be remade into socialist society through elections, without a social revolution. Worming its way into Workers' Parties and meeting no ideological or organisational resistance, revisionism gradually eroded these Parties and in the long run caused their degeneration.
This was a time when the bourgeois revolutions had ended in the West and the conditions had not matured for socialist 169 revolutions. This was when the centre of the international revolutionary movement shifted from Western Europe to Russia, where a bourgeois-democratic revolution was brewing. This revolution was to be accomplished under a new alignment of class forces. In the West European countries the revolutions were led by the radical section of the bourgeoisie, but in Russia the working class was the driving force and leader of the democratic revolution. The dialectics of history is such that under the new conditions the bourgeois revolution could no longer triumph under the leadership of the bourgeoisie. Its victory could only be ensured by the proletariat, whose ally was the disinherited and ruthlessly oppressed peasantry. This combination of class forces gave the bourgeois-democratic revolution specific features, which many Social-Democrats failed to understand.
Lenin saw deep into the essence of the new epoch, which determined the form and content of the proletarian Party as a party of social revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. The proletariat of Russia needed a Party that would fight tsarism and capitalism; a Party that was sufficiently large to embrace the whole country; sufficiently broad and many-sided to effect a strict and detailed division of labour; sufficiently well tempered to be able to conduct steadily its own work under any circumstances and in face of all contingencies; sufficiently flexible to be able, on the one hand, to avoid an open battle against an overwhelming enemy, and yet, on the other, to take advantage of his unwieldiness and to attack him when and where he least expected it.^^*^^
Drawing upon the basic propositions of Marxism on the substance of the proletarian Party and developing and enriching these propositions in the new historical situation, Lenin created an integral and harmonious teaching on the Party of a new type.
The Party is the advanced, politically conscious contingent of the working class armed with advanced theory and a knowledge of the laws of social development and of the class struggle. It is the only type of Party capable of leading the struggle of the masses and directing their actions to the attainment of the common goal.
As the consistent champion of the socialist interests of _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p 23.
170 the working class, the Party wages an uncompromising and determined struggle against opportunism, the deadliest enemy in the working-class movement, and also against all sorts of petty-bourgeois revolutionism which pushes the working-class movement towards anarchism, fruitless outbursts of revolutionary sentiments and political adventures.The Party is the organised contingent of the working class. It derives its strength not only from a community of ideological views but from its organisational unity and iron discipline, which is maintained by the consciousness of the Party members, by their devotion to the revolution, by their ability to contact, draw close to and, to a certain degree, even merge with the masses, and by correct political leadership.
The Party is the highest form of class organisation of the proletariat called on to influence ideologically and head all mass organisations. Inner-Party democracy, founded on collective leadership, is the source of the Party's vitality.
In substance and by the principles underlying its work, it is a Party of proletarian internationalism and does not tolerate any form of racial or national inequality. It counterposes a new world, the world of unity among working people of all nations, to the old world of national oppression and strife.
The great vitality of Lenin's teaching of the Party has been confirmed primarily by the work of the Bolshevik Party, created and fostered by Lenin. It gave the working class a clear-cut programme of struggle against tsarism and capitalism and ensured the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution. ``In 1917 the Leninist Party set a great example of historic initiative and of correct assessment of the balance of class forces and the specific features of the moment.''^^*^^
The fact that it was Russia where the imperialist front was first breached and the working class took power into its own hands was neither accidental nor the result solely of favourable circumstances. Similarly favourable objective conditions for the victory of the working class prevailed in other countries, for example, in Germany in 1918--1919. However, the German proletariat was unable to make use of these conditions because it did not have a genuinely _-_-_
~^^*^^ 50th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, p. 7.
171 revolutionary proletarian Party sufficiently strong and experienced to head the masses and lead them to victory.The great historical achievement of the CPSU was that it not only led the working class to the conquest of power but consolidated this victory under incredibly difficult conditions such as no country had ever experienced. During the grim years of the Civil War and foreign intervention it turned the young Soviet Republic into a close-knit militant camp. The Party was the organising and cementing force that ensured the surmounting of unparalleled economic dislocation, the restoration of the national economy and then the implementation of grandiose socialist changes. Guided by the Leninist Party and by the plans charted by it the Soviet people built a powerful industry, created a large-scale socialist agriculture, reached a high cultural level and turned socialism from a dream into reality. The USSR upheld its socialist gains in history's greatest war, in the war against the nazi invaders, consolidated the socialist state and started the building of communism.
Other Marxist-Leninist Parties likewise played an immense role in consolidating the people's democratic system and then effecting the transition to socialism of a number of countries that broke away from the capitalist system after the defeat of the fascist aggressors in the Second World War.
Lenin's teaching of the Party is being embodied in the powerful growth of the world communist movement. ``It is under the banner of Leninism,'' states the Address ``Centenary of the Birth of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin" adopted by the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, ``that the revolutionary movement in most countries has risen to a new height. Communist Parties have been formed and have grown strong, and the international communist movement has become a truly world-wide political force, the most influential political force of today.''^^*^^ Small wonder that bourgeois ideologists and politicians are so virulently attacking the Communist and Workers' Parties, misrepresenting Leninist ideas and attempting to counter them with quotations from Marx and Engels about the substance of the proletarian Party.
The Party is the mightiest political weapon of the working _-_-_
~^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 40.
172 class. Lenin was absolutely right when he wrote that the triumph of socialism was inconceivable without a battlesteeled Party enjoying the trust and support of the masses and capable of following and influencing the mood of the masses. It is only with such a Party at their head that the working class and all other working people can advance to the highest, communist forms of social life.In Lenin's teaching of the proletarian Party a special place is occupied by the problem of unity. Opposed to the proletariat is the powerful, highly organised state machine of the bourgeoisie. Any attempt to strike at this machine by separate, scattered efforts is doomed to failure. This is confirmed by the entire experience of the international working-class movement ever since the proletarian actions in the West early in the 19th century. Unorganised, Lenin said, the proletariat was nothing. It becomes everything only when it is organised and united. That makes the unity of the working class and its Party so vitally important. The Bolsheviks grew into a powerful Party and defeated their adversaries because they were united. In the conditions obtaining in Russia, where the petty bourgeoisie comprised a huge section of the population, it was particularly important for the Bolsheviks to act as a united, militant organisation. Had it not expelled the opportunists, splitters, factionalists and the ``heroes'' of revolutionary verbiage from its ranks, the Bolshevik Party would have been unable to lead the working class to victory. It would have been overtaken by the fate of the Social-Democratic parties of the Second International.
The Menshevik theoreticians of the past and the presentday falsifiers of the history of the CPSU are at one in alleging that Lenin's intolerance of ``differently-minded'' people was at the back of the Bolsheviks' fight against opportunists and splitters. They cannot nor do they want to admit that this was a struggle for the vital interests of the workingclass movement. Unity of the proletarian Party, it must be borne in mind, is an indispensable condition for the unity of the working class in its fight for emancipation.
When the Communist Party became the ruling Party, the 173 stability of the proletarian dictatorship and the success of socialist construction depended chiefly on the united, coordinated actions of its ranks. It will be recalled that in the Soviet Union the petty bourgeoisie comprised the huge majority of the population even after the proletarian dictatorship was established. This meant that petty-bourgeois views and traditions were still penetrating all the pores of society, completely encircling the working class and infecting less stable, untempered groups of workers. In that situation any differences within the ruling Party would have had an immediate effect on the behaviour of the petty-bourgeois, wavering strata and given enemies cause for attacking the socialist gains of the working class with redoubled energy. In 1920 Lenin wrote: ``It is a thousand times easier to vanquish the centralised big bourgeoisie than to Vanquish' the millions upon millions of petty proprietors; however, through their ordinary, everyday, imperceptible, elusive and demoralising activities, they produce the very results which the bourgeoisie need and which tend to restore the bourgeoisie. Whoever brings about even the slightest weakening of the iron discipline of the Party of the proletariat (especially during its dictatorship), is actually aiding the bourgeoisie against the proletariat.''^^*^^
Another reason why the unity of the Party was of immense importance was that from the very beginning the Soviet system rested on the alliance between two classes---the proletariat and the peasantry. This alliance also depended on unity in the ruling Party. The Soviet system, Lenin said, had no foundation for a split between the workers and peasants. But there could be a split if the Party was not united and if its policy did not conform to the fundamental interests of the workers and peasants.
Those who really had the interests of the alliance between the workers and peasants at heart had to devote themselves utterly to defending the Party's unity. This was all the more necessary in view of the fact that the USSR was a besieged fortress surrounded on all sides by hostile capitalist states. In that situation socialist construction could only succeed under the firm and united leadership of the Party.
Lenin's intolerance of any sort of factionalism, which undermined the Party, was not due to prejudice of any kind. _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 45.
174 It sprang from his awareness that without unity in the Party the dictatorship of the proletariat would fall. The Tenth Party Congress passed the famous resolution ``On Party Unity'', which stated in part: ``All class-conscious workers must clearly realise that factionalism of any kind is harmful and impermissible ... factionalism in practice inevitably leads to the weakening of team-work and to intensified and repeated attempts by the enemies of the governing Party, who have wormed their way into it, to widen the cleavage and use it for counter-revolutionary purposes.''^^*^^ It was further pointed out in the resolution that every Party organisation had to make sure that criticism of the Party's shortcomings, analysis of its general line, account of its practical experience and control of the fulfilment of its decisions should be the business of all Communists. While demanding unity in the Party, Lenin always emphasised that freedom of opinion within the framework of the Party Programme and Rules, broad innerParty democracy, and criticism and self-criticism were vital in providing correct leadership of the building of the new society.In directing the socialist reconstruction of social life, the CPSU has consistently implemented the Leninist line of strengthening the unity of its ranks. The exposure and ideological, defeat of anti-Leninist groups and trends---``Left Communists'', ``Workers' Opposition'', Trotskyites, Right opportunists and others---were made necessary by the objective conditions of the class struggle during the period of transition from capitalism to socialism. For example, characterising the social mainsprings of the Right deviation of 1928--1929, the joint plenary meeting of the Party CC and Central Control Commission in April 1929 noted: ``The Right deviation has its roots in the petty-bourgeois element surrounding the working class. In the Party the Right deviation gets its support from elements in the non-proletarian sector of the Party which are the least stable and most susceptible to petty-bourgeois influence and the danger of degeneration, and from sections of the most backward workers who have not gone through long schooling at factories and are linked with the countryside and with the urban petty bourgeoisie.''^^**^^
_-_-_~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 241.
~^^**^^ The CPSU in Resolutions..., Part II, Russ. ed., p. 554.
175Another reason why this must be remembered is that the present-day bourgeois falsifiers assert that the struggle which took place in the Communist Party was due solely to subjective reasons---the striving for power by individuals and groups. For example, in a book entitled The Communist Party of the Soviet Union Leonard Schapiro interprets all the events linked with the Party's struggle against antiLeninist factions and groups in the spirit of this specious concept. He passes over in silence the indisputable fact that behind the personal peripeteia, which are unavoidable in an ideological and organisational struggle within the Party, there was a most important thing---the destiny of the proletarian dictatorship and socialist construction in the USSR. A party, particularly a ruling party, is not a debating club. Without unity of thought and action, without a determined struggle against opportunist deviations and trends it is impossible to safeguard the victory won by the working class and carry out an unprecedented fundamental reconstruction of society's economic and socio-political life.
Party unity founded on correct policy approved and supported by the masses, on a clear understanding by all Communists of the Party's aims and tasks is a powerful driving force of the revolutionary process. Without unity among its membership no party can carry out the tasks confronting it. That is why at its congresses and conferences and at the plenary meetings of its Central Committee the Communist Party constantly reminded its members of the imperative need to strengthen unity. In its resolution on the CC report, the Fourteenth Party Congress pointed out that ``the leading role of the Party can be fully ensured only by absolute unity of will and cohesion of the Party ranks, by the preservation and strengthening of Bolshevik proletarian discipline in the Party''.^^*^^
The Sixteenth and subsequent Party congresses also centred their attention on the need for strengthening the Party's unity and combating all attempts at undermining Party discipline and cohesion. In the Party Rules adopted by the Seventeenth Congress in 1934 it is underscored that the Party's strength rests on solidarity and unity of will and action.
A clause stating that the duty of every Party member is _-_-_
~^^*^^ The CPSU in Resolutions..., Part II, Russ. ed., p. 201.
176 to safeguard the Party's unity as the main requisite for the Party's strength was introduced into the Rules of the CPSU passed by the Nineteenth Congress. Lastly, the currently operating Rules, adopted by the Twenty-Second Congress and somewhat amended by the Twenty-Third Congress, contain a clause stating that the ideological and organisational unity and cohesion of the Party ranks, high political consciousness and discipline of all Communists are an inviolable law of the CPSU. ``All manifestations of factionalism and group activity are incompatible with MarxistLeninist Party principles, and with Party membership. The Party frees itself of those who violate the Programme and Rules of the CPSU and, by their behaviour, compromise the lofty name of Communist.''^^*^^The Party's point of departure is, therefore, that at all stages of its development, including the period of communist construction, the unity of the Party ranks is one of the most important conditions for successful progress.
In this context the question of a one-party or multi-party system merits attention. This question has been studied and debated by the Communist and Workers' Parties. Is a oneparty system mandatory for all countries building socialism? Experience and theoretical considerations indicate that it is not mandatory. Everything depends on the place and time, and on the real alignment of forces. If the different parties representing the interests of the working people pledge to co-operate and if they agree that no other road but that of socialism is acceptable to them, socialism can triumph under a multi-party system.
In the Soviet Union the one-party system took shape by virtue of definite historical conditions. After the October Revolution the Bolsheviks invited the Mensheviks, SocialistRevolutionaries and other parties calling themselves Socialist to recognise Soviet power as the only legal and genuinely people's power and join in the work of building the new system. This proposal was rejected out of hand by these parties and they started an open fight, going over to the camp of the whiteguard counter-revolution. Naturally, they had to share the fate of that camp.
The historical situation was such that in view of Soviet Russia's encirclement by capitalist countries, which _-_-_
~^^*^^ The Road to Communism, p. 598. 12--2635
177 categorically refused to recognise her right to existence, and in view of the unprecedented resistance of the deposed exploiting classes in the country a return to the multi-party system in the USSR would have created a real possibility for the restoration of capitalism. At their plenary meeting in July 1926 the CC and the Central Control Commission pointed out: ``The existence of several political parties and, thereby, of a power struggle between them would have meant nothing but a direct rupture of the link between the proletariat and the peasantry achieved at such a high price and now growing stronger. It would have meant the total disintegration and direct undermining of the very foundations of the proletarian dictatorship.''^^*^^When the exploiting classes were liquidated in the USSR and the socio-political and ideological unity of Soviet society became a reality, the multi-party system could not be created artificially. The appearance of any other, non-Communist party in Soviet society would have meant that it would have to put forward some special programme of struggle of its own. But what kind of programme could that be? The Soviet people unanimously support the Communist Party's line of building communism in the USSR. The only road from socialism leads to communism. Any other road would lead back to old practices.
The usual argument of the bourgeois critics of the oneparty system in the USSR is that it leaves no room for the development of democratic forms of social life. There would have been grounds for this argument if the Party had put a ban on all other public organisations. However, everybody knows that the CPSU is vitally interested in the maximum activity of both state and public organisations and in their consistent and ever broader democratisation. Socialist democracy develops by its own laws, which differ fundamentally from the laws governing bourgeois democracy. This was ultimately appreciated even by Theodore Dan, a Menshevik leader, who was once one of the most active adversaries of Soviet power. In The Origins of Bolshevism, a book published in the USA in 1947 shortly before his death, Dan wrote: ``But in a society where there are no antagonistic classes there will scarcely be room for the political parties of the type that have taken shape in the course of the _-_-_
~^^*^^ The CPSU in Resolutions..., Part II, Russ. ed., p. 272.
178 development and functioning of capitalism. This bears not only on Soviet society.''^^*^^ From this he draws the conclusion that the development of democracy in socialist society does not necessarily have to be linked with a multi-party system.Soviet socialist society has no social soil for a multi-party system or for a split in the Communist Party. But this by no means implies that there is no longer any need for strengthening Party unity. The cohesion of Soviet society signifies that it is not divided into antagonistic classes and that all the social groups are united by a community of basic interests. There are, however, non-antagonistic contradictions, to surmount which not a little effort is required. The contradictions in socialist society spring from the concrete historical conditions of its development. As the first, lowest phase of communism, socialism is not yet free of the ``birthmarks'' of capitalism. The overwhelming majority of the working people are active in building the new life. But there are backward people who still remain in the grip of survivals of old views, habits and private-proprietor ideology. These survivals are actively sustained and propagated by bourgeois ideologists abroad. They make themselves felt not only among non-Party people but also among a section of Communists. The possibility of alien ideology influencing immature, insufficiently tempered Party members is not to be ruled out.
The development of society as a whole, and of the Party in particular, is a complex and contradictory process. The old and the new, the progressive and the conservative are permanently at war. The vicissitudes of this war pose the Party with new tasks and require new forms and methods of organisational and political work among the masses, and a new approach to the solution of pressing problems. Willynilly, conservatives and dogmatists, who have grown accustomed to established forms that had been useful in their day but had ceased to conform to the new requirements, become a hindrance to further progress. In some cases they even come forward as a counteracting force that has to be removed from the path. This is a contradiction of life itself, and it has to be reckoned with.
Criticism and self-criticism are a powerful means of instilling in Party members a high sense of responsibility, _-_-_
~^^*^^ Theodore Dan, The Origins of Bolshevism, London, 1964, p. 439.
__PRINTERS_P_178_COMMENT__ 12* 179 achieving efficiency and uniting the Party ranks on principled positions. Let us recall Lenin's famous words that only a Party which is not afraid to criticise its own errors and shortcomings has chances for success and is not in danger of losing its revolutionary qualities. A Party that hides unhealthy symptoms, conceals or whitewashes its shortcomings and portrays its errors as merits is doomed to losing prestige among the people. For a Party claiming to be the militant vanguard of the working class, verbal assurances of its fidelity to Marxism-Leninism are not enough. It has to match its actions to its words, openly admit its errors and educate its members by recognising and rectifying these errors. This is demanded by Leninism.Democratic centralism is the organisational foundation of the Party's unity and its co-ordinated, collective action. The substance of democratic centralism lies, on the one hand, in the electivity of all the Party's leading organs from top to bottom and their periodical accountability to their own organisations and to higher organs; and, on the other, in the observance of strict Party discipline, mandatory subordination of the minority to the majority and the absolute fulfilment of the decisions of the higher by the lower organs. The principles underlying democratic centralism were formulated by Lenin during his work on the newspaper Iskra, and at the Second Congress of the Russian SocialDemocratic Labour Party during the discussion of the Party Rules. Subsequently, he enlarged on and specified these principles in One Step Forward, Two Steps Back and other works upholding the organisational foundations of Bolshevism. Lenin acted on the principle that the Party can successfully fulfil its role of organiser and leader of the working people only when its ideological unity is embodied in definite organisational norms protecting the Party from disorganising elements.
The Leninist organisational principles and, in particular, democratic centralism were virulently attacked by the Mensheviks and by the leaders of the Second International, Karl Kautsky especially. They maintained that there was no need for a centralised, disciplined Party and preached broad 180 autonomy which would have, in fact, turned the Party into a loose and inefficient organisation. They asserted that centralism would bureaucratise the Party, fetter the initiative of its various organisations, and so on.
But Lenin linked centralism with broad inner-Party democracy. Even when the Party functioned under the stern conditions of the revolutionary underground, he demanded that all of its affairs should be decided collectively by all its members, and that higher Party bodies should take every opportunity to render an account of their activities to the lower organisations. Party congresses and conferences, he insisted, had to be convened regularly and the decisions adopted by them had to be the result of comprehensive collective discussion. Maximum democracy reigned at all the Party forums held with Lenin's participation. Every participant had the possibility of openly stating his stand until a decision was passed. But once it was adopted by the majority, a decision acquired the force of a Party law and the Party required its unconditional fulfilment by all members.
Without democratic centralism the Party would unavoidably have lost its unity. The Bolsheviks proved to be equal to the most bitter trials of the pre-Revolution period because at all stages of the struggle they were united ideologically and organisationally.
It must be noted that bourgeois and reformist critics of Marxism-Leninism become particularly aggressive when they attack democratic centralism as the basic principle underlying the Party's organisational structure. Of course, this is not accidental. They are obviously aware that without sound organisational foundations the Communist Parties would have disintegrated. In order to weaken them, the bourgeois and reformist theoreticians try to find strong arguments against democratic centralism. Alfred G. Meyer wrote a book entitled Leninism, in which he deals at length with democratic centralism in an effort to prove that it is untenable. The gist of his arguments is, first, that freedom of views in working out Party decisions is incompatible with the demand for ``absolute discipline'', i.e., Party unity.^^*^^ No _-_-_
~^^*^^ In this connection, it would be apposite to recall what Georgi Plekhanov wrote about freedom of opinion in the Party in 1903, when he was still a revolutionary Marxist: ``Freedom of opinion can and should be limited precisely because the Party is a voluntary alliance __NOTE__ Footnote cont. on page 182. 181 ``absolute unity" can exist alongside freedom of criticism, he says, adding that ``this formula of `free criticism plus unity of action' is ... no more than a verbal solution of the problem of combining free discussion with discipline.''^^*^^ The reason for this, it turns out, is that ``the function of carrying out decisions cannot be separated entirely from that of making decisions, particularly in the communist movement''.^^**^^
Further, Meyer finds that the weakness of democratic centralism lies in the postulate that the Party is united in its aims. Meanwhile, he says, aims change constantly, which means that not only the method of implementing the programme but the problem itself has to be constantly reconsidered. Therefore, if democratic centralism forbids criticism of a line agreed upon, who will venture to declare that this line needs reconsideration?
With sophisms of this kind Meyer seeks to cast doubt on the expediency of democratic centralism. Yet in their practical work all the Communist Parties, which are founded on democratic centralism, do not encounter an insuperable contradiction between freedom of criticism and Party discipline, or between unity of purpose and the methods of carrying out their programmes. In life all this is resolved much more simply than any sophist imagines. The Party strives to admit to its ranks the most conscious and steeled fighters precisely in order to find a correct resolution to the problems confronting it and successfully attain its purpose, which is to emancipate the working class and reorganise society along socialist lines. All the Marxist-Leninist Parties have recognised democratic centralism as the guideline of their organisational structure. Theory and the practice of the world communist movement confirm the efficacy and expediency of this principle.
The Central Committee of the CPSU has time and again emphasised that democratic centralism is an indispensable condition for the activity of the Party as a political organisation.
_-_-_ __NOTE__ Footnote cont. from page 181. of like-minded people: a divergence becomes inevitable as soon as identity of opinions disappears. To force upon the Party, for the sake of freedom of opinion, such members as do not share its views means to restrict its freedom of choice and hinder its actions" (G.~V. Plekhanov, Works, Russ. ed., Vol. XII, p. 455).~^^*^^ Alfred G. Meyer, Leninism, Harvard University Press, 1957, p. 95.
~^^**^^ Ibid.
182Democratic centralism is inseparably linked with collective leadership. The Party, as we have pointed out earlier, is a voluntary organisation of like-minded people. Every Party member is in the Party not by compulsion but of his own free will, as an active and conscious fighter for communism.
The Party's work is founded on persuasion. Armchair methods of administration are alien to the Party's very nature. The function of its leading organs is not to command but to direct the Party organisations and set them correct tasks as the situation dictates. For this a collective mind is required. No matter what qualities an individual may have, he cannot encompass all the aspects and diversity of the problems facing the Party organisations. Collective decisions resulting from comprehensive discussion are the only safeguard against a subjectivistic approach in determining the various problems of Party work. Collectivism is the highest principle of Party leadership.
Our adversaries usually say that democratic centralism rules out collective leadership and gives rise to the dictatorship of individuals and the cult of their personality. This does not conform to reality. A personality cult may spring from violations of inner-Party democracy as one of the indispensable conditions for democratic centralism. The CPSU exposed and denounced the Stalin personality cult. In taking the line of exposing the personality cult and eradicating its injurious consequences, the Party openly declared that this phenomenon, so deeply alien to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism and the nature of socialism, cannot be tolerated. The decision of the CC CPSU of June 30, 1956, ``On Surmounting the Personality Cult and Its Consequences'', brought to light the objective and subjective reasons that had given rise to the personality cult. In this decision, it was stressed, in particular, that violations of the Leninist norms of Party life and of the principles underlying collective leadership were one of the major causes that led to the personality cult.
The restoration of the Leninist norms of Party and state life, of collective leadership and revolutionary legality was vital for the further development of Soviet society and for enhancing the Party's role in all spheres of social life. That was why the line charted by the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU was approved by the Party and by the entire 183 international communist movement. In the operating Rules it is stated that the CPSU founds its work on the strict observance of the Leninist norms of Party life, collective leadership and the utmost development of inner-Party democracy, the activity of all members and criticism and self-criticism. In order to improve the methods of collective leadership and promote inner-Party democracy, the Twenty-Third Congress of the CPSU introduced into the Party Rules a clause stating that when necessary the Central Committee may convene all-Union Party conferences, and that the Central Committees of the Communist Parties of the Union republics may convene republican Party conferences.
A powerful source of the strength and invincibility of the CPSU is its link with the people. When Lenin built up the Bolshevik Party he made every effort to widen and multiply its links with the broadest sections of the working people. He repeatedly declared that the Party could successfully pursue its policy and direct the struggle of the working people towards the attainment of the socialist ideal only if it was in the midst of the masses, knew their moods, aspirations and strivings and correctly expressed what the people thought. ``A vanguard performs its task as vanguard only when it is able to avoid being isolated from the mass of the people it leads and is able really to lead the whole mass forward.''^^*^^ Furthermore, he stressed that the Party would not merit its title unless it learned to link leaders with the class and with the masses in a single and inseparable whole.
When bourgeois historians, sociologists and philosophers speak of the CPSU they usually ascribe to it what they would like to see in it, namely, that it stands above the masses. One of them, Professor Adam B. Ulam of Harvard University, with a zeal worthy of better application, tries to prove in his book The Bolsheviks that Lenin had never oriented himself on the masses, that the main thing for him was a Party consisting of an ``elite'' of professional revolutionaries, only capable of accomplishing the revolution. _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 227.
184 Another diehard American anti-Communist, Professor Bertram D. Wolfe, declares that Lenin believed that a ``classless elite, recruited from students and intellectuals . .. might well seize power not, as Marx expected, where the economy was most advanced and the working class most `conscious', cultured, organised, numerous and politically most active; it might seize power just as easily, nay, even more easily, where the economy was backward, the workers neither mature nor conscious nor politically active, and all political parties of all classes rudimentary or non-existent''.^^*^^This is wrong, to put it mildly, for every schoolboy knows in what relation and situation Lenin spoke of professional revolutionaries and the place he accorded to them in the Party. Nobody devoted so much strength as Lenin to turn the Bolshevik Party into a genuinely mass organisation of the working class. Nobody worked so consistently as Lenin to win the masses over to the side of the Bolshevik Party. In 1917, after tsarism was overthrown, Lenin linked the problem of transition to the second, socialist, stage of the revolution with that of winning the masses over to the side of the Bolshevik Party. ``As long as we are in the minority,'' he wrote in his famous April Theses, ``we carry on the work of criticising and exposing errors and at the same time we preach the necessity of transferring the entire state power to the Soviets of Workers' Deputies, so that the people may overcome their mistakes by experience.''^^**^^
Subsequently, as the revolutionary events developed, Lenin repeatedly returned to the question of the need for winning the trust and support of the masses. When he set the task of preparing and effecting the armed uprising, he was careful to explain that the uprising could count on being successful only if the advanced class and the broadest sections of the people supported and took a direct part in it.
The October Revolution triumphed because the Bolsheviks rallied the working masses of town and countryside to their banner and won the support of the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies, the trade unions, the factory committees and young workers' associations.
With the establishment of Soviet power the Party's link _-_-_
~^^*^^ Bertram D. Wolfe, Marxism in the Modern World, Stanford, 1965,
~^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 23.
185 with the masses changed qualitatively. The character of the activity not only of the Party, which became the ruling party, but of all the working people's organisations underwent a change under the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Soviets became the direct and all-embracing organs of state power. The trade unions, as Lenin so aptly put it, became a school of administration, a school of economic management, a school of communism. The young workers' associations merged into the Young Communist League, through which the Party is linked with the working youth of town and countryside. Co-operative associations came into being throughout the country and played an immense role in the socialist reconstruction of agriculture. Under the leadership of the Communist Party all these mass organisations comprised that ``general mechanism of proletarian state power" through which the dictatorship of the proletariat functioned and through which the socialist state functions today.The Party makes every effort to promote the activity of the mass organisations in economic and cultural development and in strengthening and developing the principles of socialism. Throughout the existence of Soviet power there has never been a Party congress that did not, in one form or another, discuss the work of the Soviets, the trade unions, the YCL and other mass organisations. Considerable attention was accorded to these organisations by the Twentieth and subsequent congresses of the CPSU. Rectifying the shortcomings engendered by the personality cult, the Party secured the reorganisation of their work on the basis of Leninist norms and directed them towards fulfilling the tasks of communist construction and encouraging initiative.
But does not the Party's leading position in regard to all state and public organisations clash with the independence of these organisations? Our adversaries allege that the Communist Party dictates its will to the trade unions, the Soviets and so on, thereby depriving them of the possibility of working independently. Actually, the Party's leadership is restricted to general instructions of a principled character. As regards their specific forms of activity, these organisations have the broadest scope.
In some Communist Parties one hears voices saying that the trade unions and other public organisations should be autonomous, that the Party organisations should generally refrain from intervening in their work-. This contravenes the 186 spirit and principles of Leninism. It will be recalled that Lenin considered that Communists should work even in reactionary trade unions. If the Party does nothing to influence the non-Party organisations ideologically it risks losing contact with the masses and, consequently, its significance as the vanguard of the working class.
A comprehensive characterisation of the tasks facing the Soviets, the trade unions and the YCL is given in the decisions of the Twenty-Third Congress and other documents of the CPSU. The importance of further promoting the democratisation of the Soviets, which are the largest public organisations, is specially underscored in these documents. The Twenty-Third Congress demanded that Party organisations should eradicate completely the practice of petty tutelage and of taking over the functions of the Soviets. Their concern, it was pointed out, is to select cadres for work in the Soviets, further the development of socialist democracy and make sure that socialist legality is strictly observed.
The central functions of the trade unions are to educate the working people politically, improve the organisation and remuneration of labour, promote the professional education of workers, insure labour protection and improve everyday services. The extension of the rights and economic independence of enterprises enhances the responsibility of the trade unions for the fulfilment of state plans and for drawing the working people into the management of production. The Twenty-Third Congress stressed that better leadership by the Party was an indispensable condition for greater activity by the trade unions.
The Party has always attached the greatest importance to the Young Communist League, which is called upon to take a most active part in economic and cultural development and in the country's political life and to pay special attention to the education of its members and all other young people on the basis of the revolutionary, labour and militant traditions of the Soviet people and the Communist Party.
The Soviets, the trade unions and the YCL embrace more than 100 million people. Given correct leadership, this huge number of organised people is capable of performing miracles. The Party bends every effort to encourage their initiative and draw as many of them as possible into active social and political work.
187The CPSU is a Party of the working people. In the period of its emergence and consolidation it came forward as the vanguard of the working class. Lenin attached decisive importance to the Party's clear-cut class character. First fix the boundaries and then unite, Lenin said, thereby stressing the need for building up a genuinely proletarian Party which would not be dissolved among petty-bourgeois groups and trends. At all stages of its development the Bolshevik Party pursued a consistently proletarian policy and made sure the working class clearly understood its specific class tasks.
After the October Revolution the Bolshevik Party became the spokesman of the proletariat and the peasantry inasmuch as from the very beginning Soviet power rested on an alliance between these two classes. But even under these conditions the Party pursued a well-defined proletarian line. From this angle it regulated its own composition, demarcating the social affiliation of the people joining its ranks. The need for this demarcation sprang from the conditions obtaining in the period of transition, when antagonistic classes existed and there was the real danger of the Party being littered with alien elements.
It was only as a result of the triumph of socialism, when the exploiting classes were liquidated and the social composition of Soviet society underwent a radical change that the Eighteenth Party Congress, held in 1939, abolished the different categories and established uniform procedure for the admission of workers, peasants and intellectuals to Party membership. In the Congress resolution on the amendments to the Party Rules it was stated that the foundation for the moral and political unity of Soviet society had been created as a result of far-reaching socio-economic reforms. ``Numerous cadres of non-Party Bolsheviks, foremost workers, peasants and intellectuals, active and conscious champions of the Party's cause and propounders of its line among the masses, have grown up round the Party. In this new situation the need has arisen for amending the terms in the Rules for the admission of new members into the Party.''^^*^^
The new Party Rules adopted in 1952 by the Nineteenth Congress contained the following definition of the Party: _-_-_
~^^*^^ 7he CPSU in Resolutions..., Part III, Russ. ed., p. 367.
188 ``The Communist Party of the Soviet Union is a voluntary militant alliance of like-minded people, of Communists. It is organised of people from the working class, the working peasantry and the working intelligentsia.''^^*^^ It was, thereby, emphasised that the Communist Party had become the vanguard of the entire Soviet people. This was a natural development under conditions where the Party's aims, tasks and policies had the wholehearted backing of the entire people. It was, therefore, no surprise that the Twenty-Second Congress (1961) drew the conclusion that the Communist Party had evolved from the Party of the working class into the Party of the whole Soviet people. This conclusion stemmed logically from the fact that socialism had triumphed and the unity of Soviet society had been consolidated. It mirrored the dialectical process in the course of which the Party had undergone a change in conformity with the fundamental change of Soviet society's social structure.However, as the Party of the whole people, the CPSU has by no means lost its proletarian essence as regards its principles, tasks and aims, all the more that the proletariat is the most organised class of socialist society and leads the people in the work of building communism. The concept ``Party of the working class" cannot, therefore, be counterposed to the concept ``Party of the whole people''. The concept Party is, of course, indivisibly linked with the concept of classes and the class struggle. But after socialism triumphed completely and finally in the USSR and the world socialist system---creation of the international working class ---took shape, the centre of the class struggle began to shift more and more to the international arena. The Soviet people led by the Communist Party comes forward as one of the most powerful contingents of the international working class, whose end purpose is to ensure the triumph of communism on a global scale.
In the course of communist construction class distinctions in Soviet society are erased and, in the long run, they will disappear altogether. It would be strange, to say the least, to fail to see that in the process of society's development the Communist Party becomes the party of the whole people. At the highest phase of communism, when social self-- administration is consolidated and all people become highly _-_-_
~^^*^^ The CPSU in Resolutions..., Part III, Russ. ed., p. 579.
189 conscious and active workers in all spheies of social life, the Party as we know it today will evidently cease to exist. The people will merge completely with their communist vanguard. The time when this happens is still far distant, but there is no doubt that it will come.The clause about the Party's growing role in the life of Soviet society, formulated in the Programme of the CPSU, has to be considered in close connection with the question of the Party as the vanguard of the entire people.
The growth of the Party's role is an objective law of socialist social development. The socialist mode of production develops not sporadically but evenly, in accordance with plans drawn up beforehand. These plans can only be realistic if the people drawing them up know the laws of economic and social development. The Party concentrates the attention, will and labour effort of millions of people on the fulfilment of such plans.
The Party's importance and role as the leading and guiding force of society have been growing throughout the period of socialist reconstruction in the Soviet Union. This is quite natural. Lenin said: ``The greater the scope and extent of historical events, the greater is the number of people participating in them, and, contrariwise, the more profound the change we wish to bring about, the more must we rouse an interest and an intelligent attitude towards it, and convince more millions and tens of millions of people that it is necessary.''^^*^^
Armed with revolutionary theory and clearly seeing the prospects and aims of the struggle, the Party is the force that persuades the masses and organises and inspires them to the attainment of epoch-making achievements.
The Party is an alliance of people adhering to one and the same ideological platform and guided by a single, integral and harmonious teaching. In charting its policy it takes into account objective laws and the alignment of class forces at every given stage of social development. As a rule, all the finest elements of the people are concentrated in the _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 498.
190 Party. Ideologically, politically and organisationally it is the most tempered section of society, and this is what gives it the moral right to be the leader.The thesis on the Party's growing role under conditions marked by the growth of the people's political consciousness may, at first glance, seem to be paradoxical. But this is only a seeming paradox. The Party's leading role grows because its cause becomes the cause of the whole people. There was a time when the ideals of communism were embraced by only a small group of people. Today they have won the minds and hearts of hundreds of millions. The Party's calls and policy are supported by huge masses of people. Under these conditions an extremely high level of leadership has to be provided by the Party.
The growth of the role played by the Party in the life of Soviet society at the new stage of its development is due, as the Programme of the CPSU points out, to:
the growing scope and complexity of the tasks of communist construction;
the growth of creative activity of the masses and the participation of further millions of people in the administration of state affairs and of production;
the further development of socialist democracy, the enhancement of the role of social organisations, and the extension of the rights enjoyed by the Union republics and local organisations;
the growing importance of the theory of scientific communism, its creative development and propaganda, the necessity for improving the communist education of the working people and the struggle to overcome the survivals of the past in the minds of the people.
Society's development from socialism to communism is an extremely complex and manifold process, in the course of which the material and technical basis of communism is built and the state and co-operative forms of ownership gradually draw closer and finally merge into a single, communist ownership. Essential changes take place in social relations and in society's political superstructure; class distinctions between workers and peasants and the essential distinctions between mental and physical labour are erased.
These processes are not spontaneous, of course. There has to be an organising and guiding force such as the Communist Party.
191While emphasising the growing role played by the Party in communist construction, the Twenty-Third Congress of the CPSU drew particular attention to the need for improving the leadership of economic processes. It approved the decisions of the October 1964 and subsequent plenary meetings of the CC CPSU, which denounced subjectivist methods of leadership and charted the principles of economic policy conforming to the present stage of development. In the resolution on the CC report the Congress noted that Party, local government and economic organisations were called upon to implement the principles of this policy consistently.
The Party is guided by the tenet of historical materialism on the determining role of material conditions of the life of society. However great may be the reverse influence of the political and ideological superstructures on the economic basis of socialist society, its state is determined primarily by the level of development of the productive forces and by the relations of production conforming to them. If this is overlooked, it leads to voluntarism, to violations of the scientific foundations of leadership. Correct leadership can only be provided by taking real socio-economic processes strictly into account. ``Marxism,'' Lenin wrote, ``takes its stand on the facts, and not on possibilities. A Marxist must, as the foundation of his policy, put only precisely and unquestionably demonstrated facts.''^^*^^
The Party cannot conceivably pursue a correct policy without taking into consideration all factors, and, primarily, the economic interests of society.
This is stressed in the decisions of the Twenty-Third Congress, which orient the Party on a fundamental improvement of economic management, achieving a more rational utilisation of the productive forces and bringing out all the advantages of the socialist system.
A concrete way of solving the pressing economic problems springing from the programme of communist construction mapped out by the Party is to combine centralised branch management with the extension of the rights enjoyed by the Union republics, a greater accent on economic methods in economic management, a fundamental improvement of planning, the promotion of the economic independence and _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 35, p. 242.
192 initiative of the various enterprises and the provision of more material incentives. The Congress focussed the attention of all Party organisations on the drive to fulfil the five-year plan for 1966--1970, stressing that they had to employ organisational and educational methods intrinsic to them without supplanting local government and economic organs or engaging in petty tutelage over their work.As the leading force of society, the Party feels that one of its key tasks is to enrich Marxist-Leninist theory creatively. Features inherent in the Leninist Party are its constant attention to theory and its ability to combine theory with revolutionary practice, sum up the experience of the people and profoundly understand the new processes taking place in socio-political life.
Like Marx and Engels before him, Lenin attached paramount importance to the fact that the Party's day-to-day activities should by no means overshadow theoretical work and push the Party into the adoption of a narrow, utilitarian attitude. Throughout his work as founder and leader of the Bolshevik Party he combined the elaboration of pressing theoretical problems with the implementation of the practical tasks of the revolutionary struggle. At all major stages of the working-class movement he wrote works that enriched revolutionary theory and moved it forward.
The assertions of bourgeois ``scholars'' that Lenin gave his attention solely to questions of revolutionary tactics and showed little interest in theory are false from beginning to end. Everybody knows that Lenin is the author of worldfamous works on problems of political economy, philosophy, the theory and history of the working-class movement, and scientific communism. His works, which, together with his correspondence, fill 55 volumes, are an inexhaustible treasure-store of theoretical thought for all who fight for a better future for mankind.
For the Party a high level of theoretical knowledge is an indispensable condition for the successful fulfilment of the tasks of the revolutionary struggle. Marxist-Leninist theory is a reliable means against the menace of ideological degeneration. One of the reasons of the opportunist downfall of the parties of the Second International was that they ignored theoretical problems and then buried them in oblivion. On the other hand, a dogmatic interpretation of theory is likewise fraught with dangerous consequences. A striking __PRINTERS_P_193_COMMENT__ 13---2635 193 example of this is the Mao Tse-tung group. It interprets revolutionary theory in such a way as to make an ugly caricature of Marxism. It vulgarises and misrepresents the teaching of Marxism-Leninism on the laws of social development and the class struggle, on the dictatorship of the proletariat, socialism and communism. Its dogmatism has become malicious revisionism permeated with Great-Power nationalism and anti-Sovietism. Mao Tse-tung and his group have, in effect, denied the Communist Party its role of organiser and leader of the people in carrying out the revolutionary reconstruction of society.
A proletarian Party's fidelity to the Marxist-Leninist teaching is inseparable from a creative attitude to this teaching, from the ability to apply it correctly and enrich it in conformity with specific historical conditions. Had it not been armed with the Leninist teaching, which it upheld and enriched in the struggle against the Trotskyite-Zinoviev and other anti-Party groups, the CPSU would have been unable to carry out the socialist reconstruction of the country. Suffice it to recall the period 1925--1927, when the destiny of socialism in the USSR hung in the balance. The TrotskyiteZinoviev opposition tenaciously clung to its capitulationist view that socialism could not be built in the USSR without direct state support from the proletariat of other countries. It labelled the Party's line of steering towards the triumph of socialism in one country, the USSR, as ``national socialism" and predicted the bourgeois degeneration of the USSR in the event the proletarian revolution was delayed in Europe.
The Party proved to be up to the mark and gave a resolute rebuff to the capitulationists. It was proved and theoretically substantiated that in alliance with the peasantry the working class of the USSR could build socialism with its own resources despite and in defiance of the capitalist encirclement. This was one of the Party's most outstanding scientific feats, a feat that opened up a clear prospect for the triumphant building of socialism. At the same time, this was a major contribution to Marxist-Leninist theory.
``All the great victories socialism has scored in our country,'' states the CC report to the Twenty-Third Congress of the CPSU, ``are based on the Marxist-Leninist teaching. The hopes of our enemies for an ideological degeneration of the Communist Party and the Soviet people 194 could not be more vain. This will never happen. No force on earth can undermine or dampen our unshakable faith in Marxism-Leninism.''^^*^^
The Party profoundly studies the manifold processes in the country and the world at large, ascertains the new laws stemming from the course of socio-economic development and determines the ways and means of building the new society.
Constant attention to problems of theory is an essential indication of the fact that in working on current tasks the Party clearly sees the general line of development and keeps the end purpose of its struggle in sight. Since the war the CPSU and other fraternal Parties have collectively elaborated on a number of highly important problems of theoretical and political significance. In particular, they precisely determined the character of the present epoch, enlarged on and concretised Lenin's propositions on the diversity of the ways of transition to socialism, and on the peaceful coexistence of countries with different social systems, and put forward and substantiated the thesis that in the modern epoch a world war can be averted.
After analysing the changes that have taken place in the USSR as a result of the complete and final triumph of socialism and the commencement of the full-scale building of communism, the Party resolved a series of pressing problems, among them the problem of the dictatorship of the proletariat under present-day conditions, the laws governing the evolution of socialism into communism, the ways of building the material and technical basis of communism, the moulding of communist social relations and the upbringing of the new man.
The Party's point of departure is that communist construction can be successfully directed only by combining theory with practice. It requires that every Communist should understand the prospects of our movement and see the general picture of social progress behind individual, scattered phenomena.
``Creatively developing and enriching Marxism-Leninism, the Party illumines the road for the Soviet people in their work of building communism.''^^**^^
_-_-_~^^*^^ 23rd Congress of the CPSU, p. 144.
~^^**^^ 50th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, p. 41.
__PRINTERS_P_195_COMMENT__ 13* 195The purpose of theory is to blaze the trail for practice, ensure a genuinely scientific direction of society's economic and cultural life and illumine the road for the Party and the people. Hence the importance of promoting theory and summing up the practice of communist construction in the USSR and the revolutionary processes taking place in other countries. A creative, Marxist-Leninist approach to the new problems arising in the course of world development and the practice of the revolutionary movement is a vital condition for furthering the advance of the international communist movement.
The qualities characterising the Leninist Party are fidelity to the Marxist-Leninist teaching, intolerance of revisionism and dogmatism in any form, constant and unbreakable links with the people, and determination and self-sacrifice in the struggle for a bright future for the whole of mankind.
An intrinsic feature of the Communist Party is its allegiance to the principles of proletarian internationalism. It has always conformed its strategy and tactics to these principles, taking into consideration the interests of the proletarian movement not only in its own but in other countries.
For the Party of the working class, particularly in a country like Russia with its multi-national population, it was vital to keep to the internationalist principle in policy and in its organisational structure.
The Bolsheviks countered the Great-Power and nationalistic policies of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties with the unity and indivisibility of the class interests of the proletariat and other working people of all the nationalities inhabiting Russia. They educated the workers in a spirit of complete national equality and mutual respect. The First World War strikingly showed the importance of the internationalist policy of the Bolsheviks, who prevented nationalistic trends and sentiments from infecting their ranks. This policy, to use Lenin's words, embodied the idea that sets in motion the huge masses of working people throughout the world. The Bolsheviks were able to use the crisis sparked by the war to mobilise the oppressed and exploited to overthrow the tsarist monarchy and then the bourgeoisie.
196Lenin's theory of socialist revolution, which proved that socialism could triumph initially in a few or even in one country, provided the model for combining the national and international tasks of the working class in the epoch of imperialism. The Great October Socialist Revolution was a classical embodiment of the principles of proletarian internationalism. From the very beginning the Soviet Union, a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, was founded on fraternal co-operation between free peoples. The Party uprooted all manifestations of Great-Power chauvinism and local nationalism, demanding that in the struggle against nationalistic survivals Communists display tact and understanding for the feelings of peoples who had been subjected to national oppression, and nip in the bud in their own ranks any relapses into Great-Russian chauvinism. Lenin insisted that every effort should be made to avoid stereotype solutions in national policy, that the utmost consideration should be given to the historical, economic and cultural features of every nation and nationality and that these features should be combined with the common interests of the working people.
The Party always regarded socialist construction in the USSR as part of the struggle of the international working class for liberation from capitalist slavery. The building and consolidation of socialism in the USSR was a major internationalist duty of the Communist Party and the whole Soviet people.
The Trotskyite slanderers asserted that the line of building socialism in one country signified national narrowness. Developments have completely refuted this slander. It was thanks to the Party's Leninist policy that the Soviet Union has become an unfading beacon of socialism to which the eyes of all progressive mankind are turned. Since the October Revolution the main criterion of proletarian internationalism has become the attitude to the Leninist Party and the Soviet people, who pioneered the road to socialism and set an example of dedicated struggle for the revolutionary renewal of the world.
The international relations of the Soviet people grew as socialist construction moved from success to success. The separation of a number of countries from the capitalist system after the Second World War, the formation of the world socialist system, the powerful growth of the 197 international communist and working-class movement and the unparalleled upsurge of the national liberation struggle of the oppressed peoples are the natural continuation of the epoch-making process started by the October Revolution. Today it is obvious to everybody that the victory of the people's democratic revolutions in a number of countries after the Second World War and then the formation of the world socialist system were made possible by the Soviet Union's decisive role in defeating the nazi aggressors.
Mankind is moving inexorably along the road of transition from capitalism to socialism, along the road of surmounting all the barriers---economic, political and ideological---that separate nations from each other. ``The establishment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and, later, of the world socialist system,'' it is stated in the Programme of the CPSU, ``is the commencement of the historical process of all-round association of the peoples. With the disappearance of class antagonisms in the fraternal family of socialist countries, national antagonisms also disappear.''^^*^^
The CPSU, a Party of proletarian internationalists, facilitates the development of the world revolutionary process, acting on the Leninist proposition that the Soviet Union influences the international revolution chiefly through its successes in building the new life, through its economic policy aimed at achieving a steady growth of the productive forces and the standard of living.
The concept of ``pushing'' and ``accelerating'' the proletarian revolution by aggravating the international situation and by war is profoundly alien to the Communist Party. Those who tried to ``kindle the flame of world revolution'' by war were called madmen and provocateurs by Lenin. The theory of pushing the revolution from without, he said, was completely at variance with Marxism. Marxism ``has always been opposed to `pushing' revolutions, which develop with the growing acuteness of the class antagonisms that engender revolutions''.^^**^^ The policy of aggression and war is intrinsic to the imperialists, not to internationalist Marxists-Leninists. This is borne out by the entire history of the development of the imperialist states.
_-_-_~^^*^^ The Road to Communism, p. 468.
~^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, pp. 71--72.
198The policy pursued by the CPSU is aimed at curbing the imperialist aggressors. Along with other socialist countries and Communist Parties, the CPSU seeks to ensure favourable international conditions for the building of communism in the USSR and for socialist construction in other countries, where the working class is in power, and help the peoples fighting for freedom and national independence.
Communist construction is regarded by the CPSU as its principal internationalist duty to the working people of the whole world. The growing economic might of the Soviet Union and the efficiency of socialist production, the rising living standard of the Soviet people, the development of socialist democracy and the successful Soviet national policy are enhancing the attraction of socialism and further changing the alignment of world forces in favour of socialism.
The Party develops and enriches the principles of proletarian internationalism in conformity with the features of the epoch of communist construction in the USSR, the victorious consolidation of socialism in the countries of the world socialist system, and the requirements of the modern world communist movement.
The CPSU is pledged to strengthen unity and fraternal co-operation among the socialist countries.
This unity underlies the strength of the international communist and working-class movement and of the national liberation movement against imperialism. No socialist country that adheres to the principles of proletarian internationalism can hold aloof from mutual assistance and cooperation with all the other socialist countries. In the situation obtaining today one cannot be an internationalist without wholeheartedly supporting the unity of the socialist camp. The sorry theoreticians and politicians who advocate the isolated existence and development of socialist countries maintain that this is dictated by the national and historical features of the various countries. It is true, of course, that such features exist and that they have to be taken into account in order to avoid grave errors. But there also exist general laws, which inevitably govern the socialist development of any country.
To uphold and implement the principles of proletarian internationalism means to be intolerant of national narrowness of any kind, and of all tendencies to withdraw into one's national shell. Internationalism demands the 199 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1971/DRTC378/20070608/299.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2007.06.08) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [*]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ subordination of the interests of the proletarian struggle in one country to the interests of this struggle on a global scale. It requires that the nation which has defeated the bourgeoisie should render fraternal assistance to other peoples fighting for freedom and socialism. This Leninist guideline unchangeably underlies the activities of the CPSU.
The line of building socialism in isolation from the world community of socialist countries is untenable in both theory and practice. It runs counter to the objective laws of socialist development. Politically it is harmful and dangerous because it disunites the people in face of the front of imperialist reaction, nourishes bourgeois-nationalistic tendencies and, in the long run, may lead to the loss of socialist gains.
In their fight against the socialist camp the imperialists rely particularly on the ideology of nationalism, which they are using in an attempt to split the socialist community and set some countries against others in order to deal with them singly. Nationalism hits the interests of the socialist community and, chiefly, of the people of the country in which it comes to the fore. That is why all Marxist-Leninist Parties censure the nationalist line pursued by the Mao Tsetung group which uses the thesis of ``relying on one's own efforts" to disguise its attempts to isolate the Chinese people and oppose it to the socialist community. The nationalism and anti-Sovietism of the Mao group are two sides of the same coin---betrayal of the principles of proletarian internationalism. History has proved more than once that he who fights the CPSU and the Soviet Union inevitably breaks with internationalism and communism. ``There has never been and will never be such a thing as anti-Soviet communism,''^^*^^ said Janos Kadar at the Twenty-Third CPSU Congress. The fraternal Parties consider that by attacking the Soviet Union, mainstay of the socialist community and true ally of the peoples fighting for freedom and independence, the Chinese leaders are helping imperialism's anti-Soviet crusade.
Isolation from the socialist community can only hinder the development of a socialist country which puts itself in a position where it will be unable to utilise the advantages of the socialist system.
_-_-_~^^*^^ 23rd Congress of the CPSU, Verbatim Report, Russ. ed., Vol I p. 292.
200The CPSU upholds and implements the principle of harmoniously combining proletarian internationalism with socialist patriotism, which means devotion to the motherland and to the socialist community as a whole. Socialist patriotism and proletarian internationalism embrace solidarity with the proletariat and all other working people of all countries.
The CPSU vigorously supports the communist and working-class movement and the national liberation, anti-- imperialist struggle of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America. It attaches paramount importance to united action by all contingents of the world communist and working-class movement as a means of securing joint action against imperialism and consolidating the position of socialism in the world. Addressing the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in Moscow on June 7, 1969, L. I. Brezhnev, who headed the CPSU delegation, underscored the need for the utmost promotion of relations and contacts between fraternal Parties. These relations and contacts are a major means of co-ordinating the actions of the Communist and Workers' Parties in the international arena and of comparing their stand on various problems and settling differences. Bilateral and multilateral conferences of leaders of the fraternal Parties and also regional and world conferences are the form of collective work that has become the practice in promoting co-operation among Communistsinternationalists.
The CPSU holds that the desire for unity and further solidarity expresses the objective laws of the development of the world revolutionary process. The trend towards the unity of Communist and Workers' Parties is clearing the road for itself despite divergences and different interpretations of the complexity of the new tasks in the theory and practice of the present-day class struggle.
In determining its foreign policy the CPSU proceeds from the general line of the communist movement worked out collectively by the fraternal Parties. This was strikingly demonstrated at the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties held in Moscow in June 1969. Representatives of the fraternal Parties paid tribute in their speeches to the efforts of the CC CPSU to strengthen cooperation between all socialist countries and all Communist and Workers' Parties.
201The successful solution of many major problems confronting the peoples of the world depends on co-ordinated, united action by the Communist and Workers' Parties. There may be divergences between individual Parties on separate problems of theory and policy, but these divergences have to be settled through a comradely exchange of views, consultations and comradely criticism, and not through defamation and slander.
At the Meeting it was stated that there had to be a consistent struggle against revisionism, dogmatism and Leftsectarian adventurism, and also against manifestations of nationalism, Great-Power chauvinism and hegemonism.
Chauvinistic and hegemonistic tendencies are profoundly alien to the internationalist principles underlying the policies of Marxist-Leninist Parties. The international communist movement can develop successfully provided equality and independence are respected and there is mutual support and international solidarity between all Communist and Workers' Parties. The CPSU reaffirmed the immutability of its stand, declaring that it would steadfastly continue to bend every effort to strengthen the internationalist unity of all fraternal Parties on the basis of the Marxist-Leninist teaching, on the basis of the line collectively charted by the world communist movement.
The CC CPSU expressed its attitude to the principles of proletarian internationalism as follows: ``The CPSU works tirelessly and consistently to strengthen the unity of the international communist movement on the basis of MarxistLeninist principles. The unity of Communists and the international solidarity of the working class and the working people of the world with the country of the October Revolution have been an important condition for the historic victories achieved by the Soviet peoples in the field of battle and in labour.''^^*^^
The CPSU acts on the principle that the Communist Parties can successfully discharge their international mission as the force organising and inspiring the peoples in the struggle for peace, democracy and socialism only if they themselves serve as a model of unity of thought and action. However diversified the conditions in which the Communist Parties have to apply their tactics, all of them are united by a _-_-_
~^^*^^ 50th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, p. 60.
202 common Marxist-Leninist ideology and a common ultimate goal. Close co-operation between the fraternal Parties and collectively agreed positions are an objective need of the world communist and working-class movement. This was reaffirmed by the CPSU delegation at the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties. The firmer the unity and solidarity of the Communist and Workers' Parties, the more effective will be their struggle. __*_*_*__Lenin's teaching of the proletarian Party has passed the test of decades of the great struggle of the international working class. Developed and enriched in the course of the many years of dedicated work by the CPSU and other fraternal Parties, this teaching is a mighty ideological weapon of all the working people. It shows them the sure road to victory, to the bright communist future.
[203] __ALPHA_LVL1__ CONTEMPORANEITYD. I. Chesnokov
__NOTE__ Author(s) is (are) above LVL in original.The Great October Socialist Revolution, which ushered in the split of the world into two systems---the socialist and the capitalist---vividly revealed that the destructive and constructive tasks of the social revolution of the proletariat were indivisible. The Soviet socialist state, creation of the revolution, was the main weapon of the working class in carrying out these tasks. To destroy the old social relations and liquidate the exploiting classes the socialist state employed and relied on violence. In this respect it was outwardly reminiscent of the state preceding it. However, what fundamentally distinguishes the socialist from the exploiting state is that the former is built by the people to defend their interests against exploiters, while the latter uses violence to defend the interests of the exploiting classes. But the distinctions between the socialist and the exploiting state become even more obvious when we examine the creative tasks of the revolution.
The main content of the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat lies in its creative aspect. Lenin repeatedly drew attention to this aspect. The pertinent propositions evolved by him underlay the CPSU's work of building socialism and communism and promoting Soviet statehood.
Like any other problem of Marxist theory, the question of the socialist state was enlarged on by Lenin in close connection with the practice of the struggle for socialism with due consideration for the alignment of class forces and the features of the class struggle in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism. He distinguished the fundamental 204 laws governing the development of the socialist state, laws that inevitably operate during the transition of other countries from capitalism to socialism, from the specifics of the proletarian revolution and the transition period in Russia.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. Leninism and the Relationship BetweenThe working class needs the socialist state to crush the resistance of the deposed exploiting classes and carry through to completion its class struggle against the forces and traditions of the old society. Relying on the socialist state, the working class eradicates capitalist and pre-capitalist relations, replacing them with socialist relations, transforms petty private ownership into socialist ownership, and builds socialism and communism. The working class can carry out all these tasks only in close alliance with all the non-- proletarian segments of the working people. In the socialist state, therefore, the key factor is the alliance of the working class and peasantry, with the proletariat playing the leading role.
The substance of the socialist state is that it draws all working people into the administration of social affairs and the fulfilment of all the tasks of socialist construction. From the very first days of its existence the socialist state embodies the highest type of democracy. Lenin saw the mainsprings of the might of Soviet power in the support it receives from the people, in the fact that it takes the experience of the people into account and draws them into the administration of its affairs. He regarded the promotion of socialist democracy as the general line of the development of socialist statehood.
The transition from capitalist to socialist society, which lives and develops scientifically, by plan, requires persevering efforts by the Party and the state to organise the working masses and maintain discipline. The organisation and discipline of the masses are a major element of socialist construction. Until the building of communism is completed, public organisation of the masses has to be augmented with state discipline. This concerns not only the period of transition, but also socialism as the first phase of communism.
205It takes a long time to turn state discipline into voluntary discipline. This was repeatedly stressed by Lenin, who wrote: ``Accounting and control---that is mainly what is needed for the `smooth working', for the proper functioning, of the first phase of communist society....
``But this `factory' discipline, which the proletariat, after defeating the capitalists, after overthrowing the exploiters, will extend to the whole of society, is by no means our ideal, or our ultimate goal. It is only a step for thoroughly cleansing society of all the infamies and abominations of capitalist exploitation, and for further progress.''^^*^^
Strict discipline and socialist democracy are not antipodes, but two sides of one and the same essence.
The extent to which the people are drawn into the administration of society largely depends on their cultural level. Another reason why the cultural level of the people must be raised is to enable them to display their capabilities more fully in the process of economic development, and knowledgeably build and master production founded on the most up-to-date technologies. For the victorious proletariat the cultural revolution is one of the key conditions for the building of socialism. The socialist state is called upon to carry out this revolution, and in this lies one of the prerequisites for the development of socialist democracy and drawing the people into the administration of the state. Lastly, the cultural revolution is a major condition for enhancing the efficiency of administration and for scientifically reorganising the state apparatus. Time and again, particularly in articles written in 1922 and 1923, Lenin stressed the importance of the science of administration, of the socialist efficiency of the Soviet state apparatus, of reducing the cost of running it, and of streamlining it.
These are some of the propositions which Lenin enlarged on when he worked on the problems of socialist democracy in connection with the immediate tasks of socialist construction in the USSR.
The constructive aspect of the socialist state manifests itself most fully in the economic and political fields. By rallying all working people round the proletariat and enabling the masses to run all state affairs,^^**^^ the socialist state _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 474.
~^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 420.
206 creates the political conditions for socialism and communism. Economically, it ensures the triumph of communism, concentrating in its hands all the threads of a huge industrial machine and, on the basis of modern technologies, developing and using this industrial foundation to reorganise the national economy as a whole and direct it in accordance with a single plan. Special state organs (financial, economic, planning), which prior to the socialist revolution were nonexistent or were, as a rule, non-state institutions, had to be set up in order to make it possible to direct the national economy. Without them the planned guidance of economic and cultural growth is inconceivable. During the transition from socialism to communism these organs of the socialist state are destined ``to grow, to develop and become strong, performing all the main activities of organised society".^^*^^ Naturally, becoming organs of public self-administration they will increasingly shed their political character with the withering away of the state.The economy and politics are inseparable, first, because socialist forms of the economy are created and developed in the process of the struggle between socialist and capitalist elements; second, because the socialist economy can only be built on the foundation of co-operation between society's two principal classes---the workers and the peasants ( relations between classes are inevitably political relations); third, one of the basic aims of socialist economic and cultural development is to abolish the actual inequality between peoples inherited from capitalism (economic development is called upon to strengthen co-operation between nations within the framework of the socialist state on the basis of complete equality and mutual assistance, and this is of enormous political importance); fourth, economic development in a country advancing along the road to socialism is of tremendous international significance. The victorious proletariat is able not only to overthrow the exploiters and give a rebuff to international imperialism, but also set an example of economic development by fundamentally new methods, without exploiters and against them. Addressing the Moscow Gubernia Party Conference on November 21, 1920, Lenin said: ``After proving that, by revolutionary organisation, we can repel any violence directed against the _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 408.
207 exploited, we must prove the same thing in another field by setting an example that will convince the vast mass of the peasants and petty-bourgeois elements, and other countries as well, not in word but in deed, that a communist system and way of life can be created by a proletariat which has won a war. This is a task of world-wide significance.''^^*^^Lastly, the process of building a new, socialist economy by millions of people who consciously set themselves the aim of building a new life, the creative work of the masses who have shaken off the imperialist yoke is in itself a phenomenon of the greatest social and political significance, and is more pronounced the fuller socialist democracy is developed.
Politics is the activity of millions of people building socialism.
A scientifically substantiated economic policy underlies the entire work of the socialist state. In the socialist state organisational and political activity merge. Separated, they become political prattle unsupported by practical work, or turn into narrow utilitarianism leading to disregard of the interests of the state and the people, to the loss of the revolutionary prospect, to aimless drifting and capitulation. Lenin always warned against these extremes.
From the very first days of the existence of the socialist state, economic-organisational and cultural-educational activity comprised the main content of its work. After the Civil War Lenin tirelessly drew the attention of the Party and the people to this aspect of state administration.
When we speak of the socialist state's constructive role we ought not to lose sight of the fact that it has to organise the masses, primarily the working class, in order to carry through the class struggle against the exploiters to completion, strengthen the country's defence capability and defend the cause of peace. The socialist revolution and the state of the working class are called upon to prove their superiority over capitalism in military organisation as well. The purpose of the socialist state's Armed Forces is to defend the gains of the revolution against all encroachments by external enemies, curb their aggressive ambitions, and protect the peaceful work of the workers and peasants building socialism. At the same time, their might deters _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 418.
208 imperialist aggression against the peoples of other countries. The Soviet Army guards peace throughout the world.Finally, it must be stated that the building of socialism in one country is not the affair solely of the people of that country, but of the working people of the whole world, because the building and triumph of socialism in any country is a link of the single world revolutionary process. This unity of the national and international tasks of the proletariat and all other working people in the struggle to safeguard the gains of the revolution was noted by Lenin as soon as Soviet power was established. He regarded the Soviet Republic as a contingent ``of the world army of socialism''.^^*^^
Lenin ridiculed the pseudo-revolutionary prattle of the Trotskyites and ``Left Communists" about the ``export of revolution'', which is widely used by the imperialists and revisionists to slander the USSR, and stressed at the same time that the export of counter-revolution had to be effectively stemmed. He regarded the build-up of the socialist state's Armed Forces as the means of neutralising the export of counter-revolution.
At a definite stage of socialist construction, namely, as long as exploiting classes remain in the country, the Armed Forces, which safeguard the revolution against encroachment by international imperialism, are needed to curb these classes, prevent attempts to kindle civil war and, in the event civil war is started by these classes despite everything, to crush the forces of the internal counter-revolution. In the first (defence against the intrigues of international imperialism) and the second (crushing the internal counterrevolution or preventing attempts at armed action by the internal counter-revolution) cases the socialist state's Armed Forces play a revolutionary role, helping to bring to completion the destructive work of the revolution and create the conditions for constructive tasks.
To a larger degree the punitive organs of the socialist state---the court and the procurator's office---are faced with the same tasks, with the difference that their work is limited mainly to the sphere of internal relations, i.e., to the enforcement of socialist laws. Punitive measures are applied not only as punishment but also as a means of education.
_-_-_~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 163.
__PRINTERS_P_209_COMMENT__ 14--2635 209In building socialism and communism the Communist Party and the Soviet Government are guided by Lenin's teaching on the creative role of the socialist state. Inspired by this teaching, the Soviet people have built socialism and are now successfully going forward with the building of communism. But the Party has never regarded the rules and principles formulated by Lenin as dogmas not subject to amendment or development. On the contrary, Leninism is an eternally living and developing teaching. Complying with Lenin's behests, the Party continually develops and enriches his teaching.
__NUMERIC_LVL2__ 2. Development of the TheoryThe basic tenets on the creative role of the socialist state were formulated by Lenin at the beginning of the period of transition from capitalism to socialism. The encirclement by hostile capitalist countries and Russia's economic backwardness created enormous difficulties for the victorious proletariat. Relying on the support of international imperialism, the deposed exploiting classes put up a savage resistance in an attempt to restore the capitalist order. Mirroring the pressure of the exploiting classes and the influence of the petty-bourgeois element, the opportunist groups---Decists,^^*^^ ``Workers' Opposition'', Trotskyites, Right opportunists--- sought to steer the Party away from the road charted by Lenin. Particularly violent attacks were directed at Lenin's teaching on the Party and the dictatorship of the proletariat, and his theory of the socialist state. In this sphere Leninism was misrepresented on the following problems. The Decists and the anarcho-syndicalists (``Workers' Opposition'') were opposed to the leading role of the Party in the dictatorship _-_-_
~^^*^^ Decists---``democratic centralism" group, an opposition faction which formed in the Communist Party in 1920--1921. Its name derives from its misinterpretation of democratic centralism as the main guiding principle of Party policy. It used democratic centralism as a screen to expound ideas that were fundamentally at variance with the Party's principles.---Ed.
210 of the proletariat. They rejected centralism and discipline as the key elements of proletarian organisation, slighted the Soviets---the largest organisation of the masses---supplanted the class approach to the working people and state power by petty-bourgeois arguments about the ``working people" generally, and counterposed the ``self-administration'' of the producers of material values to the Soviet state. The Trotskyites demanded the replacement of methods of persuasion and education, these basic methods of organising the masses, by methods of dictation, command and compulsion. In opposition to the Leninist thesis that the state derives its strength from the political consciousness of the masses, that voluntary, conscious organisation and discipline are the source of the might of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Trotskyites demanded barrack discipline founded on compulsion. Had views of this kind gained the upper hand, the Communist Party and the state based on the dictatorship of the proletariat would have been isolated from the working class, a wedge would have been driven between the working class and the peasants and the socialist revolution would have been defeated.The Right opportunists rejected Lenin's thesis that the dictatorship of the proletariat is a continuation of the class struggle under new conditions, refused to recognise the Party's leading role in regard to the socialist state and tried to impose on the Party and the state a policy that would have opened the road to the restoration of capitalism. The suggestion, made by some ``theoreticians'' and practical workers in the early 1930s, that state activity should be curtailed in proportion to the consolidation of socialism in town and countryside, was, in effect, a Right deviation. Disparagement and belittlement of the role of the socialist state were typical of Right-wing revisionism.
The Party gave a rebuff to all these anti-Leninist concepts, showing their theoretical untenability and reactionary nature. It was steadfastly guided by the Leninist theory of the socialist state, and this was the key condition for consolidating the socialist state and solving the tasks of the period of transition from capitalism to socialism. The Party's experience of combating Right and Left revisionism is of unfading significance. The social basis nourishing these deviations is the petty-bourgeois element and capitalist relations. These deviations manifest themselves in the __PRINTERS_P_211_COMMENT__ 14* 211 belittlement of the role of the socialist state, in the demands for the immediate abolition of the state as a ``bureaucratic'' institution and its replacement by ``self-administration'' in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism.
On the question of the state, nationalistic-sectarian views manifest themselves in even uglier form. Lately, these views have been elevated by the Mao Tse-tung group in China to the level of official policy. In China military methods of command and administration have become standard practice not only of state but also of public organisations. Mao Tsetung and his myrmidons are giving the army a steadily bigger role in the state and seeking to turn it into a ``great school of politics, military science and culture''. This militarisation of economic, political and cultural life clashes with the very principles of Marxism-Leninism. Leninism teaches that parallel with the task of crushing the resistance of the exploiting classes, the chief mission of the socialist state is from the very outset that of creation. Economic, organisational, cultural and educational functions express the substance of the revolutionary power of the workers and peasants at all stages of its development.
The new revisionists of the Right and Left are only repeating and deepening the errors of their predecessors, who were routed by the CPSU. But the service rendered by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union ranges far beyond the fact that it upheld the Leninist ideological heritage against the attacks of the opportunists and ensured the building of socialism and the development of the socialist state. The great creative role of the socialist state revealed itself more and more fully and the theory of the state was enriched in the very process of socialist construction.
This has been reflected in the decisions and documents of the CPSU and the Soviet state and also in the theoretical work of Party cadres. Of the Party documents written after Lenin's death special mention must be made of the CC reports to the Sixteenth, Seventeenth, Eighteenth and TwentyThird Party congresses, and the Programme of the CPSU adopted by the Twenty-Second Congress.
With the country's industrialisation and the socialist reconstruction of agriculture, the apparatus of economic management and planning grew in breadth and gained experience, and the importance of financial organs and trade steadily increased. This accentuated the need for more 212 skilled cadres for the .economic and state apparatus, and for developing and improving this apparatus in conformity with the full-scale building of socialism. The increased volume and content of the work conducted by the State Planning Committee and the enhancement of the role played by it, and also the switch from the Supreme Economic Council to People's Commissariats were major contributions towards improving economic management, while the successful cultural revolution ensured the country with trained intellectuals devoted to socialism.
The building of the socialist state required a highly-trained professional military apparatus.
The development of the productive forces and of new machinery, particularly war machinery, throughout the world and the experience of the first socialist country during the initial years of its existence showed that there had to be a strong, modern army with a professional officers' corps. The Party replaced the obsolete propositions in its programme on an army based on the militia system with propositions on a professional Soviet Army conforming to the changed historical situation.
The work done by the Party to strengthen and improve the state apparatus, develop its democratic foundations, and train new specialists was one of the conditions of the triumph of socialism and, thereby, of the changes that took place in the socialist state itself as a result of that triumph. Socialist democracy revealed its advantages more and more fully in the process of socialist construction.
The latter half of the 1920s was characterised by increasing activity by the Soviets, greater production and political activity by the people and the development of socialist emulation, criticism and self-criticism. The cultural and educational aspect of the work of the socialist state became increasingly more pronounced. In the course of socialist construction the Party educated the workers and peasants in a spirit of devotion to the ideals of socialism, proletarian internationalism, Soviet patriotism and intolerance of the bourgeoisie and imperialism, awakened them to constant revolutionary vigilance and prepared them to tackle any difficulties and crush any intrigues of the class enemies.
Economic and social relations changed radically in the USSR as a result of the triumph of socialism. Having settled the basic question of the transition period, namely, the 213 question of ``who will win'', in favour of socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat rose to a new, higher phase. With the liquidation of the exploiting classes it gradually evolved from an organisation uniting the majority of the people against the exploiting minority into an organisation of the whole people. This took place on the basis of far-reaching changes in the social structure of society springing from the liquidation of the exploiting classes and the reconstruction of society's economic foundation. During the transition period there were various economic systems, of which the decisive were the socialist and the small-commodity systems. Under socialism public, socialist ownership of the means of production became absolutely predominant, giving the socialist state a uniform economic foundation.
While coinciding in the main objective, the interests of the principal classes of society---the workers and peasants--- substantially diverged during the transition period, inasmuch as the proletariat's relation to the means of production differed from that of the small-commodity producers. Now that socialism has triumphed, a community of socialist interests of the workers and peasants has taken shape and been consolidated.
In their totality these changes facilitated the further development of the Soviet state's socialist character and the growth of its might and prestige.
The leading role of the working class was enhanced at all stages of socialist construction.
The working class plays the central role in society's economic and political life. It propounds the highest forms of labour organisation in all spheres of production and, most important of all, moulds the new, communist attitude to labour, an attitude that spreads to other sections of the working people. For its level of organisation and political awareness, the working class occupies the leading place among other social groups. The Communist Party, leader and organiser of the working class, expresses its world outlook and the thoughts and aspirations of all Soviet people.
As a result of the victory of socialism a new social community---the Soviet people---has appeared in the USSR. The distinctions between the working class, the collective-farm peasantry and the intelligentsia have not been erased completely. But these distinctions are not antagonistic because the 214 relation of the classes to the means of production is uniform. This accounts for the community of their interests in basic questions of society's economic, social, political and cultural life.
A materialistic understanding of history requires an historical approach to the concept ``people''. Relative to our revolution, this means the ability to see the difference between the Soviet people of the transition period and the Soviet people who have built socialism. The people of the transition period were the workers, peasants and working intellectuals engaged in building socialism. Opposed to them were the anti-popular forces---the deposed exploiting classes, the profiteers and the kulaks. The people, consequently, did not embrace all social groups, if we bear in mind the social and not the ethnic aspect. Moreover, the people of that period were characterised by social heterogeneity due to the opposing tendencies of the main classes: the socialist tendency of the working class and the petty-bourgeois tendeijcy of the individual peasants. The concept ``people'' embraced what was common to and what united the workers and peasants, what put them in opposition to the exploiters, namely, the fact that both these classes were producers of material wealth in opposition to exploiters. Under those conditions, the ``people'' was a synonym of the ``workers and peasants'', an expression of the community of basic interests of these principal classes of the period of transition from capitalism to socialism. Inasmuch as the socialist state represented and defended the interests of these classes and was founded on the alliance between them, it could already then call itself a people's, a workers' and peasants' state.
The exploiting classes and groups disappeared with the triumph of socialism. In the USSR the people consisted of the working class, the collective-farm peasantry and the intelligentsia. This broadened the concept ``people'' to embrace all members of society. In regard to political institutions, this feature was expressed by the term ``of the whole people''. But this is only one aspect. The people themselves changed substantially and became united economically, politically and culturally on the basis of the new relations of production. The terms ``people'', ``national'' and ``of the whole people" became synonyms of ``socialist''. We say ``national wealth" meaning the highest form of socialist ownership; ``democracy of the whole people" meaning broad 215 socialist democracy. In this sense, the state of triumphant socialism is also a people's state. ``With the triumph of socialism the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat becomes the political organisation of the whole people with the leading role played by the working class,'' it is declared in the Theses of the CC CPSU on the 50th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution.
The term ``people'' defines not the class nature of the socialist state but the community of economic foundations and interests of all the social groups in the country and shows that instead of being a weapon for the suppression of one class by another the state embodies society's socioeconomic unity. As regards the class character of the state, it remains, as before, a workers', socialist state. The two other social forces---the peasantry and the intelligentsia--- are united with the working class on the basis of the economic relations, policies and ideology. This socialist foundation of the Soviet state came to the fore and was consolidated with the triumph of socialism. The essence and class character of the socialist state are of one and the same type at both stages of development (the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, and the period of full-scale socialist construction). We are dealing, therefore, with one and the same state at different stages of its development.
The basic features characterising the substance of the socialist state at the first phase of its development---the leading role of the working class, the alliance of the working class with other strata of working people, intolerance of capitalism and exploitation, and the drive of the working people towards communism---remain unchanged at the second phase.
The CPSU substantiated the key tenets of the two stages of the socialist state's development and defined the functions of the socialist state at the different stages of its development. During the period of transition from capitalism to socialism the principal functions of the state within the country were: suppressing the resistance of the exploiters, drawing the working people into the administration of the country, promoting socialist democracy, defending and strengthening socialist ownership, and economic, organisational, cultural and educational activity. The external functions included: the country's defence, the struggle for peace, the establishment of business relations with all countries, 216 assistance to peoples fighting imperialism or defending their freedom and independence, and political and moral support of all revolutionary, liberation and progressive movements.
The functions of the state and, particularly, the relationship between these functions undergo a certain change under triumphant socialism. The necessity of suppressing the resistance of exploiters falls away. Economic, organisational, cultural and educational functions, the function of protecting and developing socialist ownership and the function of promoting socialist democracy are further developed. All the basic external functions---the country's defence, the struggle for peace, and co-operation with other countries--- remain in full force and are further promoted. A new function---mutual assistance and co-operation with other socialist countries---emerged with the formation of the world socialist system. This is a specific external function arising from the relations in the new world system, the socialist system, whose very nature determines the need for close cooperation and mutual assistance between fraternal countries and the implementation by them of the principles of socialist internationalism. Any retreat from these principles towards nationalism contradicts the nature of socialist relations and harms the entire world socialist system, undermines the struggle against imperialism, and hits the country whose leadership commits nationalistic errors. Co-operation between socialist countries is, therefore, not only an external function. It intertwines with the internal tasks of the socialist countries, primarily with their economic and organisational activities (planning production, exchange and consumption based on the international division of labour within the framework of the world socialist system, and so on). This function is uninterruptedly developed and improved in the process of socialist and communist construction.
As regards the relationship of functions, the experience of the socialist state in the USSR and now the experience of socialist construction in other countries have shown that the state's economic, organisational, cultural and educational activity acquires steadily increasing importance. With the abolition of the exploiting classes and the triumph of socialism, this activity receives all of the state's attention. This has been pointed out in Party decisions, particularly in the QC report to the Eighteenth Congress, the Programme of the 217 CPSU, and the documents of the 'Twenty-Third Congress and of the CC plenary meetings preceding it. The Party called for the all-sided promotion of the state's economic, organisational, cultural and educational functions in the 1930s, after socialism had been built. Nazi Germany's sneak attack on the Soviet Union diverted the attention of the people and their state from creative tasks, compelling them to concentrate their efforts on defeating the enemy. Nevertheless, even during the war, the Soviet state not only ensured the needs of defence but further developed production, raised the cultural level of the people, trained cadres for all branches of the national economy and conducted extensive educational work. This creative activity by the state was the earnest of the Soviet Union's military victory. And after the war it provided the foundation for rapid economic rehabilitation. Following the victorious termination of the Great Patriotic War and after the wounds inflicted by the war had been healed, the socialist state began exercising to the full its economic and, particularly, cultural and educational functions.
The Party's conclusions on the relationship between the state's internal and external functions are of immense theoretical importance. When Marx and Engels laid the foundations for the theory of the socialist state, they proceeded from the assumption that socialism would triumph simultaneously in all the developed countries of the world. For that reason the question of the socialist state's external functions was, in effect, beyond their vision. The Leninist theory of the socialist state and the experience gained by the Soviet state when it was encircled by bourgeois countries gave prominence to the question of the socialist state's external functions. These functions were defined by the CPSU on the basis of the Leninist teaching and of the experience of socialist construction.
They express their new social character and are permeated with proletarian internationalism. Moreover, they embody the immense organising and mobilising role of socialism and of the constructive activity of the socialist state, which by its very existence, without interfering in the affairs of other peoples and countries, inspires the working people of nonsocialist countries to fight for peace, democracy and socialism, to say nothing of its economic, political and ideological influence on world development. This influence will grow 218 steadily with the further consolidation of the world socialist system.
An important contribution made by the CPSU to the theory of the socialist state was its definition of the relationship between persuasion and compulsion. A distinction must be made between violence and compulsion. Violence is a form of compulsion that necessarily rests on strength, its material embodiment being the Army and the state's punitive organs. It is directed against the hostile class, which opposes the ruling class. Compulsion does not necessarily rest on physical coercion in the form of the court, the procurator's office, the militia and so on. Public opinion, which exists in every society, may have the force of compulsion. In communist society public opinion will be the only compulsive force. The need for the suppression of social classes falls away with the abolition of exploitation of man by man. But as long as the state exists there will be state compulsion regulated by law and resting on punitive organs ---the court and the procurator's office. This is not only moral but also juridical compulsion, presupposing punishment for violations of socialist laws over and above public condemnation. The circumstance that under socialism there are no classes seeking to undermine socialist legality, but only individuals violating the norms and laws of socialist society, makes it possible gradually, as educational work progresses, to limit compulsion by the state in favour of education.
The determination of the political form of the socialist state and the principles underlying its organisation is of immense importance to theory and practice. One of the great services rendered by Lenin was that he conceived the Soviet form of the socialist state, showing its advantages over the parliamentary republic and noting that the accomplishment of the socialist revolution in other countries would inevitably produce new political forms of statehood. In line with Lenin's teaching the CPSU tirelessly developed and improved the Soviet form of the socialist state.
The CPSU jointly with the Communist Parties of other countries also contributed to the elaboration of the question of new political forms of the socialist state in countries that took the socialist, road of development after the Second World War. The talks and comradely exchanges of views with the leadership of the CPSU in the 1940s helped the 219 leaders of a number of fraternal Communist Parties to solve the problem of the social nature and functions of the new state power that emerged in the People's Democracies, and to generalise the features of the new political forms of the socialist state. Analysing the alignment of forces immediately after the Second World War, the CPSU advanced the proposition that the parliamentary republic might probably be expedient as the political form of the socialist state in countries with long-standing parliamentary traditions.
These theoretical conclusions were enlarged on in the Programme of the CPSU. Theoretical thinking worked along the same lines in the fraternal Communist Parties, examples of this being the Programme of the Communist Party of Great Britain (``The British Road to Socialism'') and the decisions adopted by the Communist Parties of Bulgaria, Poland and other countries in 1949--1952 and enlarged on at their subsequent congresses. These decisions invite the conclusion that a one-party system is not a mandatory feature of the dictatorship of the working class. The non-existence of a multi-party system in the period of socialist construction is not a general law, as many people used to think, but the outcome of specific conditions in which the revolution develops. In particular, it may be assumed that the new society will be built, as a rule, under a multi-party system in countries where the parliamentary system has long-standing traditions.
The theoretical elaboration of the principles of socialist democracy and their application to practice occupy a central place in the work of the CPSU. Lenin comprehensively characterised the proletarian dictatorship as a new and higher democracy as compared with bourgeois democracy. Successful socialist construction and, particularly, the triumph of socialism led to the burgeoning of socialist democracy. As early as at the Eighth Congress of Soviets and the Eighteenth Congress of the CPSU it was noted that the USSR had entered the period of extended socialist democracy. This was juridically embodied in the Constitution of 1936.
In 1938--1940, in line with the new historical conditions and the new theoretical conclusions, the Party reorganised the work of all local government, Party and public organisations on the basis of extended socialist democracy. However, the new stage in the development of socialist democracy revealed itself in full volume after the Second World War, 220 Two circumstances had delayed this development: nazi Germany's perfidious invasion of the USSR, which compelled the Soviet people, the socialist state and the Communist Party to place the country on a war-time footing, intensify centralism and discipline, switch a number of industries to war production, and so on; an essential role was also played by the personality cult of Stalin, which led to violations of the principles of collective leadership in the Party and the state. During the last years of Stalin's life the latter circumstance, in particular, led to an unjustifiable delay in convening the regular congress of the CPSU and to the nonconvocation of regular plenary meetings of the Central Committee. It must be emphasised that the restricted democracy called forth by war-time requirements and the negative consequences of the personality cult did not impair the foundations of socialist democracy and had no tangible effect on the development of the initiative and activity of the people, on their participation in the solution of the country's vital problems. Moreover, it may be safely said that the great feat accomplished by the Soviet people in the Second World War and in restoring the regions ravaged by the invaders was only possible thanks to the socialist system and to the immutability of the principles of socialist democracy in the Soviet Union.
The Soviet people's victory in the Second World War, the Party's denunciation of the personality cult and the eradication of the cult's harmful consequences enabled the Party to enrich the teaching of socialist democracy. Here mention must be made chiefly of the decision passed by the Twentieth Congress on the report of the CC, the decision of the CC CPSU of June 30, 1956 on the personality cult, the Party Programme adopted by the Twenty-Second Congress, and the decisions of the Twenty-Third Congress and of preceding plenary meetings of the CC beginning from the October 1964 meeting.
Summing up the experience of socialist construction, the CPSU underscored the following features of democracy under triumphant socialism. Democracy for the majority, such as it was from the first days of the revolution, has now become all-embracing democracy for all members of society, which knows neither exploitation nor class antagonisms.
Socialist society provides all the objective requisites for drawing every working person into the administration of 221 the state. The conditions for this have been created by socialist ownership and the abolition of exploitation of man by man, the unity of all working people on the basis of socialism, the abolition of unemployment and poverty, and the steadily rising standard of living and cultural level. But all this is only an objective possibility, which has to be translated into reality through the communist education and organisation of the masses. It is not enough for every citizen to have the material, cultural, political and legal conditions for participation in social affairs. He has to feel a need for such participation, and voluntarily and gratuitously undertake part of the burden of the administration of society's affairs. This requires a high level of communist consciousness. On the agenda today is the realistic task of drawing every member of socialist society into the administration of the affairs of society and the state. Considerable time and persevering work by the Party, the socialist state and public organisations to educate the people in the spirit of communism are needed in order to attain this goal.
The Party is moving in that direction. It has charted a series of measures to facilitate the development of socialist democracy. These measures include: enhancement of the role of the representative organs of power (the Soviets); extension of the rights of the Union and Autonomous republics and local organs of power; the enlistment of large numbers of workers, peasants and intellectuals into the work of the Soviets; publicity in the work of the Soviets; systematic renewal of the Soviets with the observance of a degree of successiveness; systematic accountability of the Soviets to the electorate; control by the electorate of the work of the executive organs of Soviet power, and so on; simplification and reduction of the state apparatus and cutting the cost of running it; the gradual transfer of some functions of the executive power directly to the representative organs and their standing committees; increasing direct participation of independent organisations of the working people (trade unions, YCL, etc.) in the administration of society; the joint exercise of state functions by these organisations; the granting of legislative initiative to the most important of these organisations; the promotion of direct democracy; nationwide discussions of major decisions; greater control by the people over the work of the representative and executive 222 organs of Soviet power; promotion of the various forms of control by the people over the observance of laws and the fulfilment of the decisions of Soviet power; promotion of all forms of production democracy and enhancement of the authority enjoyed by general meetings of factory and office workers and of collective farmers.
Socialist democracy is the highest type of social organisation conforming to the planned economy of socialist society founded on public ownership of the means of production. It embodies and expresses the new discipline based on a high level of political consciousness on the part of the members of society, strict voluntary observance of the laws and norms of the socialist way of life, intolerance of all attempts to violate these norms, and public condemnation, and, when necessary, penal punishment of persons violating these norms.
The experience of socialist construction in the USSR has given the CPSU grounds for drawing the important theoretical conclusion that the state withers away through its consolidation and development. The transfer to the nonstate system of administration will be achieved not by ``passing over" the state or by belittling its role, but through the socialist state, through the utmost development of its democratic essence. The working class, as the foremost and most organised force of socialist society, will go on fulfilling its leading role until classes and class distinctions disappear. The strengthening of the socialist state must not be taken to mean the swelling of state personnel, the reinforcement of administrative-punitive organs or the amplification of the functions of the state. It means chiefly the consolidation of the socialist state's economic foundations, the further cohesion of the people, the attainment of a higher level of political awareness by the people and the promotion of their initiative, the improvement of socialist democracy and the enlistment of all working people into the work of the state. As regards the state's punitive organs, which under socialism are directed at external enemies and perform the function of defending society against aggression, the question of reinforcing and promoting them depends on the international situation, on how aggressive the reactionary imperialist forces become. The socialist peoples have always desired general and complete disarmament and the abolition of armies as a weapon of foreign policy and a means of settling 223 international disputes. The need for a regular army, as the founders of Marxism foresaw, falls away with the liquidation of the exploiting classes. But as long as the bourgeois states keep building up their armies and as long as reactionary military-political alliances directed against the socialist countries and the revolutionary and national liberation movements exist, the socialist countries will be forced to improve their armed forces and vigilantly watch the intrigues of enemies.
As regards the destiny of the socialist state, the CPSU, enlarging on the Marxist-Leninist teaching of the withering away of the socialist state, holds that the state will exist also under communism in the event imperialism continues to rule the large countries of the world.
Such are the basic theoretical propositions on the question of the state under socialism advanced by the CPSU after Lenin's death on the basis of its analysis of the experience of socialist and communist construction in the USSR. As shown by the experience of socialist construction in other countries, these propositions have won international recognition. In concise form they are recorded in the Programme of the CPSU.
As the organisation of the whole people, the state remains in existence until the complete triumph of communism. Expressing the will of the people, it organises the building of the material and technical basis of communism, ensures the reorganisation of socialist relations into communist, controls the measure of labour and the measure of consumption, promotes the welfare of the people, protects their rights and freedom, safeguards socialist law and order and socialist property, educates the people in the spirit of conscious discipline and a communist attitude to work, reliably ensures the country's defence and security, promotes fraternal co-operation with other socialist countries, upholds world peace and maintains normal relations with all countries.
The main spheres in which socialist statehood develops during the period of communist construction are the all-sided unfolding of socialist democracy, the enlistment of all citizens into active participation in the administration of the country, the direction of economic and cultural growth, and the intensification of the people's control of the work of the state.
224 __ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. The Socialist StateWhat new problems of theoretical and practical importance is life putting forward in the light of the creative activity of the socialist state? This question is answered by the decisions of recent plenary meetings of the CC CPSU and particularly by the decisions of the Twenty-Third Party Congress. These same decisions set scientists and practical workers problems that require a solution. Let us examine some of these problems.
When we speak of the creative role of the socialist state under present-day conditions, we have to mention, first and foremost, its economic functions. The socialisation of the basic means of production in both industry and agriculture determines the further extension of the state's economic and organisational work and places this work on a qualitatively new level. The economy of socialist society can function and develop normally only if production processes are consciously directed under a single state plan embracing all branches of the national economy. The single centralised leadership of the Soviet Union's huge economy demands strict accounting and control of production and distribution, without which, as Lenin said, socialism cannot exist. When the general economic plan is drawn up, it is only under a single centralised leadership and through greater initiative in the localities and at individual enterprises, through stronger and fuller democratic centralism that the potentialities of every industrial and agricultural unit can be taken into account and correct proportions can be established in economic development ensuring the highest level of efficiency of each enterprise and the national economy as a whole, the greatest profitability of the enterprises and stable rapid rates of industrial growth, and the fullest use of material and moral incentives to promote the development of the productive forces. At the plenary meetings of the CC CPSU held directly before and after the Twenty-Third Congress, the Party rectified the subjectivist errors committed in the economic leadership in the recent past and concentrated attention on improving economic relations and the system of economic leadership by profound analyses of the objective economic laws of socialism. Furthermore, the Party enriched the __PRINTERS_P_226_COMMENT__ 15---2635 225 Leninist teaching of economic policy and the principles of this policy at the present stage of development.
The principles adopted by the Party consist in ``giving a greater role to economic methods and stimuli in running the economy, radically improving state planning, extending the economic activities and initiative of factories and collective and state farms, and making factory staffs more responsible for and materially more interested in the results of their work''.^^*^^
These principles are of immense theoretical and political importance. They direct the attention of economists, sociologists and experts on state development to the further elaboration of the question of the economic role played by the socialist state in communist construction. Like any other state, the Soviet state is part of the superstructure over the economic basis. But it is that part of the superstructure which is rooted directly in the economic basis.
Under socialism social production is planned and directed by the socialist state. In order to wither away and before it withers away the state has to master the art of centralised economic leadership, with the localities displaying the utmost initiative. This is a mandatory requisite of the withering away of the state.
During the period of transition the socialist state is the main vehicle for the building of the new economy and of socialist society as a whole. With the triumph of socialism, the economic role of the state is further enhanced inasmuch as its organisational role directly embraces not only enterprises belonging to the whole people but also collective-farm production.
But there is more to this than a quantitative aspect. The main thing is that under socialism the state organises accounting and control, plans the development of the socialist economy, ensures a uniform plan and provides the economy with centralised leadership on an all-sidedly developing democratic basis. Economic laws are consciously applied through the state, which is itself largely embraced by the mechanism of their operation. The activity of the state most fully reflects the operation of objective economic laws and the intelligent will of millions of working people.
In order to fulfil this great role the socialist state must _-_-_
~^^*^^ 23rd Congress of the CPSU, p. 69.
226 pursue a correct, scientifically substantiated policy that takes into account the development level reached by socialist society and the alignment of the forces of socialism and capitalism in the world. It is not enough to pursue a correct economic policy. The people have to be convinced that this policy is correct, and it is vital that they should regard the policy of the Party and the Government as their own. Economic policy has to be specified in accurately computed longterm and annual plans of economic development stating the place of each production unit in the national plan of communist construction.Correct policy and the scientific plans through which it is translated into practice have to be reinforced by political measures such as explaining the Party's policy to the people and organising extensive political work among them. A vital role is played by the legislative organs and the entire system of socialist society's legal institutions, which facilitate the successful fulfilment of the plans of economic development on a nation-wide scale. The economic reform now being put into effect in the USSR required a set of rules governing the socialist enterprise. The successful implementation of the economic reform, the introduction of new technologies and the promotion of technological progress at enterprises will undoubtedly require the further elaboration of the state, economic and administrative law and the passage of new laws.
Lastly, the economic role of the socialist state is embodied in its economic and organisational activity, particularly in its direct leadership of the work of enterprises through a system of economic and planning organs. In time the conditions will be created for the normal operation of the economic laws of socialism and for the unfolding of their features and advantages. The state's administrative activity expressed in measures of compulsion will disappear, but the administrative and organisational function will remain even after the state withers away; this function will take the form of social self-administration. Under socialism it is impossible to manage production, ensure discipline and introduce uniformity into the work of the national economy without an administrative apparatus. The setting up of such an apparatus, and its improvement, democratisation and adaptation to the requirements of the new stage of communist construction comprise one of the major functions of the socialist __PRINTERS_P_227_COMMENT__ 15* 227 state. It is, therefore, not accidental that the Party's recent decisions on the economic reform and on amendments in the system of economic planning also envisaged some changes in the management of production aimed at its further democratisation.
The present stage of communist construction sets the task of reinforcing the economic apparatus, giving economics a larger role in all branches of management, primarily at the enterprises themselves, equipping all employees of the state apparatus with profounder economic knowledge and disseminating this knowledge among the working people. This task cannot be accomplished without enlarging the system of training economic cadres and more effective organisational work by the socialist state. The state's economic, cultural and educational functions are closely interrelated. This reveals itself more fully when we examine the place and role of science in the life of socialist society. Under socialism, science increasingly evolves into a direct productive force. The development of science and technology is one of the aspects of the development of the socialist productive forces. The more complex society and production become, the larger is the role played by the scientific organisation of labour and the scientific and technological training of cadres, and by accurate economic computation based on a comprehensive economic analysis of the conditions of work at a given enterprise, in a given branch of production and in the national economy as a whole. All this has a direct bearing on the state's economic function. At the same time, the direction of the work of scientific institutions and institutions of higher learning is part of the state's cultural and educational activity.
One of the key tasks of the socialist state is to promote scientific development, for science has become one of the most powerful revolutionary factors of our day. `` Unprecedentedly rapid scientific development is the most striking feature of pur time,'' it is stated in the CC report to the Twenty-Third Congress. ``Science is exercising an evermounting influence on all aspects of material and cultural life. In our time, it is impossible to secure technical progress and a high rate of growth of the productive forces without extensive scientific research and the rapid application of its results in production. The fact that science has become a direct productive force is radically changing man's labour. 228 In socialist conditions science is not only changing the nature of man's labour but also the material and cultural pattern of his life.''^^*^^
The Communist Party and the Soviet state are improving and scientifically substantiating the methods of directing the economic and social processes of Soviet society. What does the scientific leadership of society imply? What demands must it satisfy under socialism?
Scientific leadership must rest on a knowledge of the objective laws of social development and on an understanding of how these laws operate. Knowledge of these laws gives an understanding of how events develop today and makes it possible to foresee developments in the more or less remote future.
The policy of the Communist Party and the socialist state, a policy which expresses the interests of the people and unites them for the attainment of these interests^ is mapped out on the basis of knowledge of the laws of social development and an objective account of the alignment of social forces.
Annual and long-term plans of economic and cultural development taking into account not only the level of this development but also all its features springing from the given situation within the country and in the world as_ a whole are drawn up in accordance with the laws of social development and a scientifically substantiated policy. Balanced economic development, a technological policy and organised labour clearing the way to the highest possible level of efficiency in production and the most economical utilisation of raw materials, equipment and manpower are ensured by an objective, strictly scientific analysis of the conditions of production.
Here an important role is played by the social sciences, economic science, in particular. To reckon with the requirements of science means to bring scientific work steadily closer to production, keep abreast of scientific and technological progress and conformably reorganise production, reinforce technological computations with a thorough-going economic analysis, and foresee not only the production-economic but also the social effects of the measures being started. An indispensable condition for the correct utilisation of science _-_-_
~^^*^^ 23rd Congress of the CPSU, pp. 106--07.
229 in the interests of production and society is to combine the experience of the millions of workers, peasants and working intellectuals building the material and technical basis of communism with the work of scientists and with systematic analyses of the results of their work and of the social effects of scientific and technological progress.Scientific leadership presupposes finding for each stage of communist construction the most expedient combination of ideological, political, moral and material incentives for work and a correct balance between individual and collective incentives for boosting labour productivity.
All the achievements of science and technology must be used for attaining the most efficient labour organisation not only in the given branch of production but at each enterprise taken separately.
The managerial apparatus must use in its work the latest scientific and technological achievements and the most upto-date equipment (the latest means of communication, including tele-automation, computers, and so on). World experience of managing production and the experience gained by the socialist countries make it possible to evolve the most rational forms and methods of organising management at each stage of communist construction.
The socialist state unites and organises the masses for the building of communism. It draws its great strength from the people, who have created it and organise their activity through it. The state relies on the experience and initiative of the masses, evolves the forms of organisation and education acceptable under the given conditions, and in this field it closely co-operates with all the public organisations. This requires the further improvement and development of democratic centralism. A relationship between democracy and centralism that conforms most fully to the present-day conditions of communist construction has been worked out in the decisions of the Twenty-Third Congress of the CPSU and of subsequent plenary meetings of the CC.
Such are the most essential features characterising the principles of scientific leadership of society and production. Consistent observance of these principles and a creative approach to all economic and administrative tasks are the earnest of successful guidance of the economy. These features derive from the fundamental requirements of Marxist dialectics: an objective, materialistic approach to an 230 analysis of reality in all the relationships of its historical, contradictory development, with the compulsory observance of the rule that the concrete situation has to be concretely analysed.
Like all other tasks, the economic tasks of communist construction are carried out by workers, collective farmers and intellectuals. The socialist state organises their creative endeavour. It serves the people, whose support and initiative are the source of its strength. The comprehensive promotion of socialist democracy is the main direction in which the entire socio-political system develops.
Every new step in communist construction in the USSR is marked by new achievements and, at the same time, by the emergence of bigger tasks. It leads to a further extension of socialist democracy, moving to the forefront one aspect of democracy or another that acquires special importance under the given conditions. At its present stage of development socialist democracy requires a more consistent combination of people's activity with organisation and discipline, unity and singleness of purpose in the building of communism, and intolerance of capitalism, of its ideology and way of life, and of the exponents of bourgeois morals and ideology.
Today it is more important than ever before to stress that the strengthening of all forms of discipline by raising the communist consciousness of people, by making them aware of their responsibility to society and applying to this end the principle of individual and collective material incentives and, when necessary, measures of compulsion in accordance with the laws of the socialist state, is essential for the further development of socialist democracy. Marxism has always been opposed to an anarchic understanding of freedom and democracy when the individual ignores society and the interests of other people, does not recognise public organisations and rejects discipline. Marxism-Leninism acts on the principle that the individual can really be free in society only through the liberation of all working people from exploitation.
The inner laws of socialist society make all this obvious. But the need for self-restraint, organisation and discipline is also dictated by the external conditions of development of the socialist countries.
Marxists adopted an historical approach to democracy, as to any other social phenomenon.
231Today, if we discount transitional forms, there are two opposing types of democracy---bourgeois and socialist.
One of the features of bourgeois democracy is that it is formal and specious. The bourgeoisie is always generous with promises, proclaiming and recording in the constitutions numerous freedoms for citizens. But the material means ensuring the utilisation of these freedoms are in the hands of the bourgeoisie, and the main thing is that the economic enslavement of the working class remains in full force and is being steadily intensified. Democratic freedoms are thereby used by the bourgeoisie and the groups associated with it in the interests of the exploiters, to infringe upon the rights of the working people and bar them from participation in the administration of the state. The formally proclaimed freedoms only screen the omnipotence of the bourgeoisie, its unlimited power, its dictatorship. Such is the sum and substance of bourgeois democracy.
In order to deceive the masses and create the illusion that the capitalist world of exploitation and shameless amassment of wealth by the rich at the expense of the working people is a world of ``freedom'', the bourgeoisie parades the formal attributes of democracy, concealing the class essence of bourgeois democracy as a democracy for the rich. It uses the same methods to exercise ideological influence over the masses of its own country and over the working people of socialist countries. It hopes that the ``democratic'' facade of the capitalist political system reliably camouflages the bourgeois essence of freedoms. It seeks to transfer the argument about the advantages of one democratic system or another from the decisive sphere of socio-economic and socio-political relations to the sphere of abstract legal norms and definitions.
Marxism-Leninism, the working class and its Party put the question differently. The essence of democracy is determined by whom it serves, by who actually enjoys democratic freedoms. Here it is not a matter of the formal attributes of democracy but of the cardinal questions: Who benefits by democracy? Who enjoys the freedoms granted by it? And to what purpose are these freedoms used?
Socialist democracy serves the cause of communism. That is its purpose and its essence. The problems of democracy cannot be considered outside the tasks of communist construction. Any attempt to transfer the discussion of the 232 problems of socialist democracy to the abstract legal sphere means accepting the bourgeois approach to democracy and brings grist to the mill of bourgeois propaganda, which lauds ``pure democracy" and offers Western democracy as the model. For us socialist democracy means the utmost encouragement for the initiative of the working people and their participation in the administration of social affairs. It means promoting their participation in such a way as to strengthen their organisation and discipline, and educate them in a spirit of intolerance of capitalism, bourgeois ideology, egoism and petty-bourgeois individualism. The Communist Party and the Soviet state work tirelessly to develop democracy in this direction and strengthen the discipline and communist consciousness of all the working people.
One of the features of socialist democracy at the present stage is greater production activity and initiative of the people. The decisions adopted by the Party over the past few years have extended the rights of enterprises, of the managements and of the production personnel. In particular, a greater share of the profits is now left at the disposal of the enterprise and used by it to provide more material incentives for the personnel and build service and cultural establishments and housing. This enhances the importance of popular initiative not only in the management of production but also in the correct distribution of the share of the profits left at the disposal of the enterprise.
Through their public organisations the personnel of factories are called upon to help the managements find the best ways of using economic incentives and levers to achieve the highest possible level of efficiency in production, promote technological progress, improve material and moral incentives and strengthen labour discipline.
In the sphere of everyday and cultural services, factory and office employees are called upon to make sure that the material and cultural values controlled by their enterprise are used in accordance with the principles of socialism and in the interests of the production personnel, and prevent any attempt by individuals to use these values for personal enrichment, to acquire personal power, to stifle criticism, and so on. In the long run the success of the economic reform as a whole and its implementation by individual factories is determined by the activity of the masses, by their level of political consciousness and organisation.
233The importance of further strengthening the Soviet state and fostering the utmost development of socialist democracy was emphasised by the Twenty-Third Congress of the CPSU.
With the steady growth of the people's ideological maturity and political awareness, further changes are taking place in the relationship between persuasion and compulsion.
As the principal method of education, persuasion is acquiring truly all-embracing significance. In this we see the embodiment of Lenin's famous words that ``our idea is that a state is strong when the people are politically conscious. It is strong when the people know everything, can form an opinion of everything and do everything consciously''.^^*^^ State compulsion is resorted to only when manifestations of bourgeois ideology and survivals of private-ownership psychology, morals and prejudices turn into anti-social activity and bring individuals into conflict with the norms and laws of socialist society.
All this determines the further development of the socialist state's educational functions at the present stage. Only people attached to the past and inclined towards a dogmatic assessment of the course of developments can fail to see this. Their inability to perceive new developments in their proper context is as harmful as the views of those who adopt a nihilistic attitude to the past and, in a spirit of pettybourgeois liberalism and anarchism, reject the need for a high level of exactingness and for combining persuasion with compulsion, of those who regard state compulsion as being incompatible with genuine democracy.
Democracy is a form of welding the masses together, expressing their organisation and conscious discipline. Moreover, broader democratic rights signify the strengthening and development of the people's self-discipline. But as long as remnants of old morals and views survive, the selfdiscipline of the masses and their social influence upon individual citizens have to be augmented with state-legal regulation of the behaviour of citizens, with resort to the threat of administrative or penal punishment and with the administration of such punishment when necessary. Without this the interests of the people and their democratic rights _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 256,
234 cannot be safeguarded against arbitrary, anti-social action by individuals.The socialist state plays an important role in strengthening communist discipline and fostering a highly conscious attitude to work. The reason for this is that under socialism many people do not as yet regard labour as a vital necessity; hence the need for state control of the measure of labour and the measure of consumption. The mass movement for labour discipline and self-discipline and for a communist attitude to work is headed by the working class, which sets examples of comradely co-operation, mutual exactingness and political consciousness.
The present economic reform is leading to a further strengthening of the principle of collective and individual incentives for work and this is unquestionably helping to consolidate labour discipline and promote the growth of labour productivity. The reform's success depends on local activity and initiative and on a sense of responsibility to the people and the state. It must be borne in mind that the greater rights now enjoyed by enterprises and the higher economic incentives now in operation may give rise to parochial tendencies harming the interests of society, and even to individual cases of money-grubbing. Correct regulation of material incentives combined with moral incentives, constant control over the observance of state discipline and the fulfilment of state plans and the utmost development of democracy are the main antidote to negative phenomena of this kind.
The fostering of a solicitous attitude to the results of work, i.e., to socialist property, is linked with the development of a conscious attitude to labour as a civic duty. Socialist property forms the economic foundation of socialism and is protected by law.
The tasks facing the Soviet state in all spheres of cultural development grow increasingly more complicated in proportion to the growth of its educational function.
In the hands of the socialist state are concentrated such powerful means of education as elementary and secondary schools, institutions of higher learning and a huge number of cultural establishments. These institutions have done much, but they have the possibility of doing considerably more to mould the new man in whom spiritual wealth, moral purity and physical perfection would combine harmoniously. 235 The Party and the state spare no effort to make the utmost use of these possibilities for furthering the spiritual and physical culture of the people. This has been embodied in recent years in the decisions of the CC CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR on the higher school, on improving the work of the secondary general education school, and on promoting physical culture and sport.
Fulfilment of the urgent tasks of cultural development largely depends on the work of the Soviets of Working People's Deputies. This was stressed in the decisions of the Twenty-Third Congress of the CPSU.
The Soviets are a mass organisation of the people. The largest of the public organisations, they are, at the same time, organs of state power. Being the political medium of the socialist state, they express the self-administration of the people. They may be described as a school of administration, a school of economic management and a school of communist discipline and organisation.
The building of communism means the building of its material and technical basis and, at the same time, the development of social relations, and the evolution of socialist relations into communist. This presupposes the education of the people in accordance with the features and principles of communist society, i.e., the moulding of the politically conscious and cultured new man. When this is achieved there will no longer be any need for state-legal regulation and, consequently, for the state itself. But there is only one road towards this goal---the utmost utilisation of the socialist state for economic and cultural development and for the communist education of every member of socialist society.
[236] __ALPHA_LVL1__ THE CPSUV. G. Afanasyev
__NOTE__ Author(s) is (are) above LVL in original.Socialism removes private ownership and exploitation, and establishes social ownership and relations of co-operation and mutual assistance among the working people. As a result, the capitalist regulator of the economy and of social life as a whole---the disorderly market, anarchy and competition---ceases to exist, giving way, for the first time in history, to the possibility and need for scientific, planned and organised management. Operating on the basis of public ownership, the law of planned and proportionate development makes it possible to co-ordinate the different links of the social system, mobilise manpower, material and financial resources for the fulfilment of key tasks, and direct the people towards a single goal.
__*_*_*__Lenin attached immense importance to scientific management of society, regarding the organisation of such management as one of the fundamental tasks of socialist and communist construction.
After the proletariat had seized power and after this power had been upheld in struggle against the internal counter-revolution and the foreign intervention, Lenin wrote: ``A third task is now coming to the fore as the immediate task and one which constitutes the peculiar feature of the present situation, namely, the task of organising the 237 administration of Russia. Of course, we advanced and tackled this task on the very day following October 25, 1917. Up to now, however, since the resistance of the exploiters still took the form of open civil war, up to now the task of administration could not become the main, the central task.
``Now it has become the main and central task. We, the Bolshevik Party, have convinced Russia. We have won Russia from the rich for the poor, from the exploiters for the working people. Now we must administer Russia.''^^*^^
Under exceedingly difficult conditions the Party with Lenin at its head evolved the science and system of administration. They were faced with many perplexing problems arising out of the fact that they were the first to start the building of socialism. Some of these problems were: How to turn a backward, essentially petty-bourgeois and war-ravaged country into a strong industrial power? How to surmount the petty-bourgeois element and draw tens of millions of small owners, particularly peasants, into the building of socialism, convince them of the advantages of collective farming and show these advantages in practice? How to organise the labour of millions upon millions of people who had started working for the first time not for the capitalist or landowner but for themselves, for their society? How to put an end to the ageold strife between peoples and unite different nations and nationalities into a friendly family welded together by identical aims and interests? How to surmount the cultural backwardness and bring the achievements of modern civilisation within reach of huge masses of workers and peasants, many of whom could neither read nor write? How to build up new, people's Armed Forces capable of safeguarding the gains of the revolution and ensuring the safety of peaceful, creative labour?
The Party adopted and carried out Lenin's plan of socialist construction. The principal elements of this plan were industrialisation, collectivisation of agriculture and the cultural revolution.
It rejected the arguments of the capitulationists, convinced sceptics and waverers and led the people along the road to socialism. It gave battle and emerged victorious on major issues of administration---the ways and means of building up and organising socialist economy and culture, the attitude _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 242.
238 towards the masses, the methods, means and forms of drawing them into the building of socialism, the role of public organisations, particularly of the trade unions, in administration, the principles underlying the organisation of the administrative apparatus, and so on.The Party did not approach the solution of key social problems from the viewpoint solely of the economy, or politics, or ideology. It regarded the economy as the key to many socio-political and ideological problems, at the same time emphasising that a political approach had to be adopted towards the economy. For example, when it dealt with the question of building the material and technical basis of socialism and determined the rates of development in industry and agriculture it took the social effect of economic reforms into account and its point of departure was that the political rule of the working class and its alliance with non-proletarian sections of society, principally the peasants, had to be strengthened. ``The relations existing in our country between the working class and the peasants,'' it was noted at the Twelfth Party Congress, ``ultimately rest on the relationship between industry and agriculture.''^^*^^ Acting on this principle, the Party took steps to build up, in conformity with the socialist industry, a large-scale socialist agriculture capable of ensuring the country with food and raw materials and drawing millions of peasants into the new life. Industrialisation and collectivisation were thus interrelated processes of reorganising society along socialist lines and reconstructing its economy and its socio-political relations. This process was crowned by the cultural revolution.
The Party with Lenin at its head adopted a creative approach to new problems and tirelessly looked for principles, forms and methods of administration that would conform to the character of the new society and to the tasks confronting it. Extremely indicative in this light was the New Economic Policy (NEP) formulated under Lenin's direct leadership and adopted by the Party at its Tenth Congress.
NEP was designed as a means of surmounting the economic dislocation, building the foundation of the socialist economy, developing large-scale industry, establishing a union between town and countryside, strengthening the alliance between the workers and peasants, ousting and then liquidating _-_-_
~^^*^^ The CPSU in Resolutions..., Part I, Russ. ed., p. 687.
239 capitalist elements and ensuring the triumph of socialism. In the course of NEP the Party devised new methods of economic management linked with the development of cooperatives and trade, the utilisation of commodity-money relations, and the enlistment of private capital into economic development with the key positions remaining in the hands of the proletarian state. The maximum utilisation of the resources of the state and the peasant husbandries, material incentives and accounting were the principal features of the New Economic Policy.The experience gained of using economic levers linked with commodity-money relations, implementing various forms of co-operation with non-proletarian strata in the interests of socialist construction and subsequently reconstructing the entire economy along socialist lines, and of creating an integral socialist economy is of international significance. For most countries, particularly countries in which small producers form the majority of the population, NEP provides the only correct model for building socialism.
Guided by Lenin, the Party formulated the basic principles of administration under socialism: democratic centralism making it possible to combine centralised planning with broad democracy, with local initiative; objectivity and a concrete approach requiring that objective laws and the specific way in which they manifest themselves under specific conditions should be taken into consideration; efficiency and optimality requiring the attainment of the best results with the least outlay of material, manpower and financial resources; stimulation ensuring the combination of material and moral incentives for work; the main link, i.e., selecting the main problem whose solution makes it possible to resolve the entire range of administrative problems; the territorial-branch principle, under which the administrative-territorial approach has to be combined with the special, branch approach; the principle of combining state and social interests.
Another problem expounded by the Party under Lenin's leadership was that of administration as a system of state and non-state organisations and institutions headed by the Communist Party; the cardinal demands on the administrative apparatus---competence, efficiency, combination of the scientific and administrative aspects, system, discipline and so on; the ways and means of training administrative personnel and improving their qualifications.
240Lenin, it must be emphasised, not only formulated but consistently implemented principles of scientific administration.
The Party gave much of its attention to organising and improving the system of administration, particularly the state apparatus. A department handling matters concerning the work of the administrative apparatus was set up under the Central Control Commission and the Workers' and Peasants' Inspection, the organ of Party and state control.
A new system of territorial administration was introduced by decision of the Twelfth Party Congress. The root objective of this new system was to democratise the administration, encourage local initiative and extend the rights of regional organisations by transferring to them some of the rights and functions of the central government institutions, in particular, in the sphere of the budget and taxation. The new system of administration was put into effect with the purpose of `` simplifying and reducing the running cost of the Soviet apparatus and bringing it closer to the people'', of setting up ``a system of volost (county) and other primary organs of power, which, in addition to reducing the running cost of the entire administrative and economic apparatus, would strengthen and develop the organs of power standing closest to the masses''.^^*^^
A large-scale movement for scientific administration and labour organisation was started in the USSR in the 1920s under the leadership of the Party and the state. ``When the principles of scientific labour organisation and administration, which must not be academic, are studied and established, efficient practical checking must be closely combined with a scientific summary conclusion,'' states the resolution adopted by the Twelfth Party Congress ``On the Tasks of the Workers' and Peasants' Inspection and the Central Control Commission''. ``On the practical level this study must take the shape of systematic observation of constantly repeating, typical phenomena in administrative work; of an experiment with pre-set aims and, chiefly, of scrutinising those departments of the apparatus, whose study is particularly necessary in order to ascertain the most appropriate ways for remov,ing defects in these departments.''^^**^^
_-_-_~^^*^^ The CPSU in Resolutions..., Part I, Russ. ed., p. 719.
~^^**^^ Ibid., p. 722.
__PRINTERS_P_241_COMMENT__ 16---2635 241An institute for research into the technique of administration was set up at the close of 1925. There were altogether more than ten institutes studying problems of administration.
__*_*_*__The triumph of socialism in the USSR created the economic, social, political and cultural requisites for the transition to communist construction.
The consolidation of socialism and communism is a natural historical process governed by objective laws. However, the character of these laws is such that they can be perceived and employed by people in their own interests. Moreover, under socialism this becomes an historical necessity.
The laws of society are always laws governing the activity of the people and are expressed through people's actions. Intertwining, the actions of individuals are expressed in a general trend, which comes forward as a law. Under presocialist systems every individual had his own aims, which did not coincide with the general end result, with the trend or law, and this result, therefore, was an anarchic force that dominated people. Society as a whole was unable to set a single purpose and mobilise all its members for the attainment of that purpose.
Under socialism the basic aims of individuals coincide with the common aim. The socio-political and ideological unity of the members of a socialist society make it possible to set a common purpose and to achieve that purpose by joint effort. As a result, the laws of socialism manifest themselves not in the actions of individuals or in the struggle between antagonistic classes as, say, under capitalism, but through the concerted effort of all the members of society governed by relations of friendly co-operation. Hence the mounting role of the subjective factor under socialism, the widening sphere of its operation. Here the Communist Party and the socialist state administer society in close unity with the broad masses, who are the sovereign object of administration. In their hands are concentrated the means of production, and state power is wielded by them, and they therefore have all the. economic and political means of influencing the course of social processes.
The development of socialist society is a complex 242 intermingling and interaction of objective laws and subjective factors, with the role of these factors steadily growing in proportion to society's progress, owing to the increasingly more profound knowledge of objective laws. Scientific administration implies bringing the subjective activity of people into line with objective laws and objective conditions, and skilfully using these conditions to produce the maximum effect.
To achieve this end it is necessary to have a correct understanding of the essence of objective conditions and of the subjective factor, of their place and significance in social processes and of their correlation and interaction.
The relationship between objective conditions and the subjective factor must be properly understood because mistakes lead to a violation of the key principles of scientific administration. Absolutisation of objective conditions gives rise to fatalism, anarchy and repudiation of the possibility of consciously influencing social processes. More, the absolutisation of the subjective factor leads to voluntarism and subjectivism, to armchair methods of administration, which likewise mean the repudiation of scientific methods of administration presupposing that objective laws and the requirements of objective tendencies can be perceived, taken into account and utilised.
The Party has condemned subjectivism in administration as being alien to Leninism, as dilettante disregard of the experience of science and practice. The striving to place the gigantic work of guiding state processes on a scientific, realistic basis underlies the recent Party decisions on economic, political and inner-Party questions, and it is the salient feature of the method that is taking firm root in the work of the Party and the state.
Of fundamental importance in this respect are the decisions passed by the October 1964 and subsequent plenary meetings of the CC CPSU. These decisions are putting an end to subjectivist methods, restoring the Leninist principles of scientific administration and developing them in accordance with present-day conditions. Their aim is to bring administration in line with the requirements of the objective laws of socialism, mobilise all the reserves and advantages of socialism and place them in the service of communist construction, and promote the people's initiative on a larger scale than hitherto. The measures charted at these plenary meetings to __PRINTERS_P_243_COMMENT__ 16* 243 improve the leadership of the country's political, economic and cultural affairs constitute, it was noted at the TwentyThird Party Congress, ``a new stage in the development ot our socialist society''.^^*^^
The new system of planning and of economic incentives, now being enforced by decision of the plenary meeting of the CC CPSU held in September 1965, is facilitating the implementation of the economic development plans and the improvement of the scientific methods of managing the socialist economy. A major economic and political undertaking, this system mirrors the new conditions of socialist economic management, the increased scale of modern socialist production, the qualitative changes that have taken place in the structure of socialist production, and the requirements of the scientific and technological revolution.
The economic reform signifies a new approach to economic management. Its purpose is to enhance the role of economic methods of leadership, improve state planning, ensure greater economic independence and initiative of the various production units, and develop and improve cost accounting. To a large extent the success of the reform depends on the correct combination of centralised leadership with the economic independence of production units, with moral and material incentives, and with the skilful utilisation of commodity-money relations on a socialist foundation and of the economic categories linked with these relations---profit, prices, credit and so forth, which acquire a new social content under socialism. Moreover, it depends on the level of the organisational, ideological and educational work being conducted among the people.
The reform is yielding positive results. A total of 34,000 enterprises were operating under the new system in the Soviet Union on July 1, 1969. These enterprises account for more than 80 per cent of the gross industrial product and yield nearly 90 per cent of the profit. Their rate of output growth, sales and profits are higher than at other enterprises. During the first year of work under the new conditions the enterprises transferred to the new system in the period 1966--1968 produced 9,000 million rubles' worth of output over and above the approved plan, yielded a profit of 3,000 million rubles _-_-_
~^^*^^ 23rd Congress of the CPSU, p. 314.
244 and contributed an additional 1,000 million rubles to the budget.^^*^^The Twenty-Third Congress of the CPSU was a major milestone in the development of socialist society and of the Leninist principles of administration. The decisions adopted by it demonstrated the immutability of the Party's policy of managing the economy and administering all social affairs by scientific methods. ``Marxist-Leninist science,'' A. N. Kosygin declared at the Congress, ``is the theoretical foundation for the new five-year plan just as for the whole of Soviet economic policy. In defining the main objectives of the fiveyear plan, the Party is guided by Lenin's teaching of the building of communism, the socialist economy, the socialist state system and the scientific management of economic and social processes.''^^**^^
The change from extensive forms of development, linked mainly with a numerical growth of production units and of the people working in them, to intensive forms is a characteristic feature of the development of socialist society and its gradual transition to communism. The principal forms of intensification are the use of the achievements of modern scientific and technological progress and the improvement of the system of production management and of the guidance of all social relations. Here it must be pointed out that the scientific and technological revolution and the improvement of the system of administration are indissolubly linked and interact. By enlarging and sophisticating the economy and giving rise to new branches of production, technology, science and culture, the scientific and technological revolution demands the most efficient, centralised, planned management and, at the same time, provides the managing bodies with modern scientific and technological means of management (cybernetic, mathematical, statistical and other means). In its turn, the improved system of management gives scope to the scientific and technological revolution and ensures the most effective utilisation of its achievements for the benefit of the working people. According to expert opinion, the widespread introduction of the most efficient methods of planning and management would make it possible at least to double the rate of growth of the Soviet economy. ``The all-round _-_-_
~^^*^^ Sotsialisticheskaya industriya, August 1, 1969
~^^**^^ 23rd Congress of the CPSU, p. 179.
245 perfection of centralised planned guidance and development of the democratic principles of administration, the recruitment of broad masses of working people into government, the improvement of the system of accounting and control, the elaboration and application of the scientific organisation of labour throughout the country, the employment of modern scientific and technical means---such are the principal ways of developing the system of administration.''^^*^^Let us examine these ways in some detail.
Socialism is a planned society. The law of planned, proportionate development, which operates on the basis of public ownership, makes it possible to centralise the guidance of the economy and of all other social processes. However, it must be noted that in itself this law does not ensure harmonious development and does not remove elements of anarchy. It only creates the possibility for such development, but to translate this possibility into reality the law must be understood, the mechanism of its operation must be brought to light and people must learn to use this mechanism to administer society. Violations of the requirements of this law give rise to disproportions and slow down social progress.
It is not easy to perceive the law of planned, proportionate development and learn to apply it, especially as under socialism it operates under conditions of commodity production, which gives rise to a certain tendency towards regulating social life through spontaneously operating factors. For planning to be genuinely scientific, objective and realistic, cost relations have to be carefully taken into account, subordinated to the plan and subjected to conscious control.
The law of planned, proportionate development is frequently regarded as a purely economic law. Correspondingly, planning is also regarded solely as economic planning. Yet the objective processes of the development of socialist society and the extensive practical experience of planning gained by the USSR and other socialist countries show that the nature of socialism and public ownership, which prevails in that society, create the possibility for consciously planning not only the economy but also all other aspects of social life, particularly social and cultural relations.
``Properly speaking,'' A. N. Kosygin noted, ``planning is not merely economic activity as many people believe. It _-_-_
~^^*^^ 50th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, p. 29.
246 involves the elaboration of social problems, of problems linked with the attainment of a steady rise of the standard of living. We regard the plan as a body of economic and social tasks that have to be carried out within the plan period, as the entire range of problems linked with the life of man.''^^*^^Generally speaking, there can never be any question of purely economic planning for the simple reason that the economy and economic relations, comprising the foundation of all other social relations, are not isolated from but are indissolubly linked with these relations. While determining all social relations---class, national, family---the economy is subjected to the reverse influence. It is particularly influenced by politics and the political relations between classes. In a society divided into classes, economic development has always been promoted in the interests of definite classes and has always had a definite class aim. Under socialism, for example, the purpose of the development of production is to secure the fullest possible satisfaction of the material and cultural requirements of the working class, the peasantry and the intelligentsia. It thus follows that under socialism economic development, and hence economic planning, inevitably acquire a socio-political, class character which is manifested in its purposes and tasks and in the ways and methods of resolving these tasks. It will be recalled that Lenin always insisted on a political, class approach to the solution of economic problems.
Moreover, economic planning necessarily presupposes that account should be taken of the social effects of economic reforms, of how these reforms affect the destiny of classes, nations and social groups and the relations between them. After the bourgeoisie is deposed by revolution, Engels wrote, people gradually learn to see the indirect, long-term social effects of production activity and thereby get the possibility of controlling and regulating these effects.^^**^^
The five-year plan of economic development of the USSR for 1966--1970 is a document not only of economic but also of social planning. On the basis of economic development it envisages important social tasks: a faster growth of the _-_-_
~^^*^^ A. N. Kosygin, ``Enhancement of the Scientific Aspect of Plans as the Most Important Task of Planning Bodies'', Planovoye khozyaistvo, 1965, No. 4, p. 3.
~^^**^^ Frederick Engels, Dialectics of Nature, Moscow, 1964, p. 184.
247 standard of living to create the material requisites for erasing social distinctions, and for the all-round development of people regardless of their social position, nationality and occupation; further progress in surmounting the essential distinctions between town and countryside, and between mental and physical work; promotion of the fraternal alliance of the peoples of the USSR and the further consolidation of the political foundation and material basis of the alliance between the working class and the peasants. The law of planned, proportionate development is not only an economic but also a sociological law operating in all spheres of social life, while planning covers both the economic and the social aspects of life.In this connection one of the major tasks of planning is to achieve unity between the economic and social aspects, balance development plans not only in the various branches of the economy but also in all spheres of social life, and draw up optimum plans at all levels---from individual enterprises to society as a whole.
Centralised planned management of socialist society presupposes the promotion of democratic principles in administration and the enrolment in it of the broad mass of the working people. It is this that forms the content of democratic centralism, which is the main principle underlying management in Soviet society.
Conforming to the nature of socialism, democratic centralism, Lenin wrote, ensures ``absolute harmony and unity" in the functioning of the different spheres of social life and of the different localities and regions of .the country, and at the same time ``presupposes the possibility, created for the first time in history, of a full and unhampered development not only of specific local features, but also of local inventiveness, local initiative, of diverse ways, methods and means of progress to the common goal''.^^*^^
This principle has nothing in common with the establishment of uniformity from above or with anarchy, with disregard of centralism. Unity in the main, essential thing, Lenin pointed out, must ensure diversity of details, of local features, of the method and approach, of specific ways of carrying out common tasks. At the same time, the relative _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 208.
248 independence of local initiative and the diversity of the methods and ways of carrying out tasks must not, Lenin wrote, evolve into ``eccentricity'' and go beyond the framework of the common aims and interests of communist construction. Otherwise the disruption of inter-relations, disproportions in development and the sliding into the anarchist positions of separatism and parochialism are inevitable.In the implementation of democratic centralism the most important and difficult problem is to secure the best possible combination between the measure of centralism and democracy. In the last analysis, this measure depends on the level of production, the state of social relations and specific historical conditions.
The best combination between centralism and democracy may be achieved provided centralisation is not absolutised but implemented on the basis of broad democracy with the enlistment of a large number and subsequently all working people into administration. Otherwise, democracy becomes an empty phrase and the possibility arises for concentrating excessive power in the hands of one person or a group and with it the possibility of power being abused and of leaders shaking themselves free of control by the people. ``It would, however, be inexcusable to forget,'' Lenin wrote, ``that in advocating centralism we advocate exclusively democratic centralism.''^^*^^
The second key condition for achieving the best combination between centralism and democracy is that democracy must be implemented within the framework of centralised planning and subject to socialist organisation and discipline, and it must conform to the interests of society and facilitate the attainment of the common aim. Otherwise, democracy becomes hypertrophied, is turned into fruitless and endless demagogic discussion and is used as a screen for anti-social activities. Lenin always insisted on separating ``what is appropriate for meetings from what is appropriate for administration.^^**^^
Socialist democracy presupposes strict discipline and organisation and the absolute observance of the laws and ethical standards of society. These laws and standards express the will of the majority of the people, and their _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 20, p. 46.
~^^**^^ Ibid., Vol 33, p. 70.
249 observance, therefore, conforms to the most vital interests of every citizen and of society as a whole. Without discipline and responsibility democracy would degenerate into anarchy and disorder; outside democracy, discipline and compulsion spell tyranny.Lastly, in administration the best combination between centralisation and democracy cannot be achieved without the strict demarcation and fulfilment of their functions by central organs and by local organisations and collectives. Central organs carry out the most general, basic functions of administration embracing the whole of society or individual spheres of social life wtihout interfering in the day-to-day work of administration. Otherwise, excessive regimentation, administration by injunction, the suppression of local initiative and, as a result, thoughtless, mechanical fulfilment of decisions handed down from above are inevitable. At the same time, excessive freedom of the ``lower echelons'', freedom that goes beyond the common aims, leads to the ``eccentricity'' that is but a step away from anarchy and disorder.
Consideration for democracy and local conditions is the key aspect of the interaction between centralism and democracy. This, Lenin pointed out, is the foundation of judicious administration based on the promotion of the creative initiative of the people and on the comprehensive use of their experience. Lenin wrote that ``there can be no victorious socialism that does not practice full democracy''.^^*^^ At the same time centralism, and. democracy interact and are inseparable. The development of democracy enlarges the social basis of centralism and ensures the enlistment of a steadily growing number of people into the administration of social affairs. At the same time, with the consolidation of centralism, democracy acquires an increasingly more organised character, becomes more purposeful and is used most effectively to carry out the tasks confronting society.
Democratic centralism---and that is where its immense significance lies---allows fulfilling the important administrative function of combining the unity, integrity, and possibility of (and need for) conscious administration of the socialist economy as a whole with the exemplary, scientific administration of the individual links of the social system and of social production---individual regions, enterprises and so on. Lenin _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 144.
250 wrote that the organisation of administration in the localities ``is the chief, fundamental and urgent question of all social life''.^^*^^In this connection great importance attaches to the decisions of the plenary meetings of the CC CPSU in March and September 1965, and of the Twenty-Third Party Congress, in which the principle of democratic centralism, particularly its economic form, is enlarged upon and enriched. The system of industrial planning and management adopted at the September 1965 plenary meeting of the CC CPSU creates the requisites for achieving the best combination between centralism and democracy. It is founded on a combination of centralised, planned management with the extended operational independence of enterprises, with broad republican and local initiative, with the broadening put of the democratic basis of management and with the creation of conditions for popular participation in economic management and in the administration of the whole of social life. At the same time, greater demands are made of managers and of the staff, labour discipline is strengthened and managers are charged with more responsibility for the work entrusted to them.
The functions of the central organs and of enterprises are defined in the decisions of the September 1965 plenary meeting of the CC CPSU and of the Twenty-Third Party Congress. It has been decided to concentrate the efforts of the central organs, chiefly of the ministries, on improving the principal proportions in the national economy, improving the distribution of production and the comprehensive development of the economic regions, ensuring high rates of output and supplies of basic commodities, enforcing a uniform state policy in the sphere of technological progress, capital investments, wages, prices, profits, finances and credits, and establishing economic control over the effective utilisation of the basic funds of industry, and labour, material and natural resources.
As regards enterprises, they are called on to improve the methods of managing production, raise the efficiency of planning and economic activity, implement the Leninist principles of cost accounting, promote the initiative of their personnel, enhance the role of economic incentives, promote socialist emulation, teach every staff member to display a _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 204.
251 communist attitude to work and public property, and strengthen state and production discipline. This can only be achieved by drawing the largest number of the staff into management. Effective development of production and social life can only be ensured by the collective mind of the people, by their vast practical experience and inexhaustible creative potentiality.The Party is doing everything to draw the masses into the administration of all spheres of social life and enhance the role of the Soviets and public organisations, the trade unions in particular, as a school of administration and management, and as a school of communism. The Party's policy of democratising administration is particularly clear-cut today. As is noted in the Theses ``50th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution" adopted by the CPSU, ``in the Soviets and at Party, trade union and general meetings, through the people's control bodies and through the press, radio and television the working people advance suggestions on different aspects of public life, discuss bills, criticise shortcomings and errors and uproot laxity and violations of the law''.^^*^^
The promotion of planned state leadership and the improvement of the socialist state and socialist democracy pave the way to communist social self-administration.
__*_*_*__A democratic system of control has taken shape and is developing in the USSR.
The first control organ was the collegium of the Commissariat of State Control, which was formed on December 18, 1917. Since then the Party CC has been taking steps to secure the steady improvement of the system of control to make it fit the requirements of advancing Soviet society. The main line in developing control in socialist society is to draw the largest possible number of people into participation in the system of control. Here the Party acted on the principle that it was necessary to institute strict control over the measure of labour and the measure of consumption arising from the very essence of socialism.
_-_-_~^^*^^ 50th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, p. 40.
252The prime task of control is to check on the actual state of affairs in all links of the social system, check on and scrupulously secure the fulfilment of adopted decisions, combat bureaucracy and misappropriation of socialist property and achieve efficiency in the work of the administrative apparatus. Lenin believed the way ±o success was to draw as many people as possible into the fulfilment of this task. Lenin's words that the main task of control is more ``to be able to improve things than to merely `detect' and `expose'\thinspace" hold good to this day. He stressed that ``timely and skilful rectification" was the prime function of control.^^*^^
To this end the CC CPSU at its plenary meeting in December 1965 decided to reorganise the organs of Partystate control into organs of public control. The Supreme Soviet of the USSR passed a law establishing organs of public control in the Soviet Union.
At its December 1965 plenary meeting the CC CPSU noted that in the course of three years Party-state control organs had accomplished extensive work in checking on the fulfilment of Party and Government decisions, and in the drive to promote the economy, strengthen state discipline and draw large numbers of workers, peasants and intellectuals into their work. Suffice it to say that there were over 5,000,000 people in the Party-state control groups and posts. This convincingly shows the democratic nature of the Soviet system of control.
The reorganisation of Party-state into public control organs signifies a further improvement and democratisation of control in all spheres of public life and administration. An indication of the steadily growing popular participation in the work of these organs is that at present there are nearly 7,000,000 people in them.
Public control helps the Party and the state to ensure the efficient functioning of all links of the social system, improve the administrative apparatus, secure the smooth operation of the various administrative bodies and organisations and stamp out excesses, parochialism, bureaucracy and eye-wash. Public control is a potent means of mobilising and organising forces for the fulfilment of tasks in industry, agriculture, transport, science and culture, and raising the standard of _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 42.
253 living; finding reserves of production; securing the timely commissioning of production capacities, achieving highquality output and ensuring economy and thrift.Alongside the system of public control there exist in the Soviet Union specialised agencies exercising financial, departmental and technological control. It is important to emphasise that whatever its form and whatever organ implements it, control has to conform to the Leninist requirements of objectivity, efficacy, regularity and publicity.
Today, when scientific methods are acquiring prime importance in economic management and in the administration of society as a whole, while cost accounting is becoming the decisive factor not only at industrial and agricultural enterprises and building projects, but also in everyday services, trade, communications, transport, culture, scientific institutions and other spheres of economic and cultural life, a particularly important role is played by financial control enforced by financial agencies and by organs of departmental control.
An important link in the system of administration is formed by the scientific organisation of labour.
Socialist organisation of labour is founded on a qualitatively new type of economic relations, underlying which is public ownership. This is a method of organising co-operation among people linked by amity and mutual assistance. It gives rise to a new attitude to labour itself, to working people, and to the means and results of labour. It gives birth to socialist emulation and presupposes conscious labour discipline, creative initiative and a solicitous attitude to public wealth.
Labour organisation is both an economic and a social problem. It is connected with man's place and role in the social system, and with the relations between people in social collectives, and engenders changes in man not only as a worker but also as a social and intelligent being.
Scientific labour organisation is a complex, manifold process embracing the most expedient division of labour into operations, the correct distribution of people and effective cooperation between them, the provision of their work places with programmed material and technical supplies, and with services and all the necessary equipment, the institution of a correct work rhythm, judicious alternation of labour and rest, scientific rate-setting and effective stimulation for work, the creation of a hygienic and aesthetic environment which 254 takes people's physical and intellectual qualities into account, and so on. This concerns the organisation not only of labour in material production but all socially useful work, both physical and mental.
The solution of this entire range of problems is an important task of administration. This is as it should be: people are the main components of social systems and their labour has always been and remains the basis of life and activity and the source of material and cultural wealth. Lenin devoted considerable attention to the scientific organisation of labour, regarding it as the fundamental and most urgent problem of the whole of social life. He worked out a programme for it, writing: ``organisation of labour in socialist fashion (agriculture + industry)''.^^*^^
He advised using the experience gained of organising labour under capitalism, recommending that its positive and negative aspects should be taken into consideration. He was interested in the problem of the relationship between man and machines in the process of work, and of man's place and role in the production process. He considered that not only managers but also the masses had to learn to organise labour scientifically, and suggested a contest for textbooks on labour organisation generally and on managerial expertise in particular.
Lenin's ideas on scientific labour organisation are reflected and enriched in a series of Party decisions, particularly in the Directives of the Twenty-Third Congress of the CPSU on the five-year plan of economic development for 1966--1970.
An important function of scientific labour organisation is to promote the comprehensive study and systematisation of the experience of leading enterprises and, on that basis, draw up scientific recommendations for labour organisation.
Modern society has attained such a high level of development and social life has become so complex that efficient administration requires a huge mass of the most diverse information characterising the current state of the different aspects of social life and reflecting the trends of their development. Characteristically, the volume of information is growing continuously and swiftly. For instance, it grows about twice as fast compared with the increase of the number of enterprises and of the volume of output. If we were to _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 35, p. 430.
255 process this information with the means at present available to us, by 1980 we would have to employ at least 100 million people on computation.This huge volume of information can be processed only with the help of the latest achievements of science and technology, particularly by modern economic-mathematical methods and electronic computers.
``Modern technical means,'' A. N. Kosygin told the Twenty-Third Congress of the CPSU, ``are to play an ever growing role in economic management. Combined with communication means transmitting information from factories, electronic computers will greatly enhance the efficiency of the management of industry and construction, and the work of transport, and facilitate the drawing up of Scientifically substantiated optimum variants of plan targets... . The introduction of these machines in the system of management is an important economic task.''^^*^^
The Party and the Government are, therefore, devoting considerable attention to the manufacture and utilisation of modern computing machines and automated systems of management in the national economy. There are many technical means of management already in operation and new branches of managerial technology are springing up.
Under the decision of the CC CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR to improve the work of developing computers and automated systems of management and introduce them in the national economy passed in 1966, a state network of computing centres for pooling and processing economic information for the national economy as a whole is being set up in addition to the departmental and branch automated systems. Unquestionably, this network may be used for pooling, processing and analysing information also on socio-political and ideological processes for the optimum guidance of these processes. A single automated communications system, one of the mammoth projects of the current five-year plali, is being built to ensure the information service with channels throughout the country.
However, despite the tremendous prospects being opened by modern science and technology, particularly by cybernetics, for improving the administration of society, a warning must be sounded against overestimating the role of technology _-_-_
~^^*^^ 23rd Congress of the CPSU, pp. 183--84.
256 in administration. It should also be borne in mind that people play the decisive role in consciously and purposefully influencing the social system.In the Theses of the CC CPSU ``50th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution" it is stressed that ``since the need for well-trained, highly skilled workers dedicated to the Party and the people is increasing, it is important for the Party and the Soviet state to improve the system of training and employment of personnel''.^^*^^
Administration is a complex form of mental activity, which determines the functioning and development of the social system. It may be divided into separate operations, some of which may be entrusted to machines, but the function of administration as a whole cannot be performed solely by machines no matter how perfect they may be. Machines do not entirely replace man even where administration processes have been automated to the highest degree. Machines have been and always will be solely a means helping man to fulfil the tasks facing him.
__*_*_*__The Soviet people and the Communist Party have accumulated vast experience of reorganising society by plan and guiding social processes scientifically. In the course of the building of socialism and communism, with the change of society's class structure and the growth of the scale of economic and cultural development, the content and organisational forms of administration did not remain unchanged. They were continuously developed and improved. The further improvement of the administration of all links of the social system is a key condition for the success of communist construction.
_-_-_~^^*^^ 50th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, p. 29.
[257] __ALPHA_LVL1__ LAWS OF THE FORMATIONG. Kharakhashyan
__NOTE__ Author(s) is (are) above LVL in original.In the current struggle between the two opposing socioeconomic systems---socialism and capitalism---the leading role is played by the working class and its main creation, the world socialist system.
The Great October Socialist Revolution started the revolutionary reorganisation of capitalist society into socialist society. But the significance of this revolution was not limited to the Soviet Union. The feat accomplished by the proletariat of Russia under the leadership of the Party of Lenin was an inspiring example for the peoples of all countries and continents. Following this example, in the course and as a result of the Second World War, the peoples of many European and Asian countries carried out revolutions which turned socialism into a world system. A new stage was reached in the development of the world revolutionary process.
Throughout the world the revolutionary forces rely on the successes of socialist and communist construction. The world system is now becoming the decisive factor of modern social development.
The world socialist system is a new phenomenon. History has not bequeathed to us any experience of organising international economic and political relations of the socialist type. Having emerged as the result of natural historical development, the world socialist system has raised many problems on whose solution depends the fulfilment of its historic mission of becoming the real vanguard of the world revolutionary movement and a school of socialist and communist construction.
258The Marxist-Leninist Parties have a priceless heritage to draw upon in their creative work. This consists mainly of many fundamental methodological tenets in the works of the founders of scientific communism---Karl Marx and Frederick Engels---tenets that serve as the ideological source for understanding and studying problems of international and interstate relations. Here particularly great importance attaches to the works of Lenin, who analysed the problems of the sources, character and prospects of these relations.
The CPSU has resolved the national question in its own multi-national country in theory and practice and promotes relations with other socialist states in line with the ideological teaching of the classics of Marxism. This is mirrored in the decisions of Party congresses and conferences and of the plenary meetings of the CG CPSU. Of particular importance among these documents is the resolution adopted by the Twelfth Party Congress on the national question. Noteworthy is the fact that in 1923, a difficult year for the Soviet Union, the CPSU found it possible to evolve the theory underlying the prerequisites for the formation of a world socialist system. This strikingly demonstrated the internationalist nature of the CPSU's policy and its concern for the destiny of the world revolutionary process. Already then, when the country was dislocated economically and confronted with the urgent task of restoring the economy, the Party clearly saw the prospect of unfolding the revolutionary process and the inevitable separation of further links from the chain of imperialism and the conversion of socialism into a world system.
After the world system of socialism was formed its development was dealt with in many documents of the CPSU, chiefly in the Party Programme adopted by the TwentySecond Congress and in the decisions of the Twenty-Third Congress. Important conclusions and generalisations on this question are contained in the documents of a number of other Marxist-Leninist Parties.
Attention was focussed on this question at the meetings of Communist and Workers' Parties.
On the basis of these documents and of the experience accumulated by the world socialist system we feel it would be topical in this article to examine the following problems:~
the objective prerequisites for the establishment of socialism as a world system;~
__PRINTERS_P_259_COMMENT__ 17* 259the character and role of the new type of international economic relations;~
the laws governing these relations and the prospects of their development;~
the principles underlying the political relations between socialist countries.
The need for an examination of these problems is particularly urgent in view of the fact that they are being misrepresented by the ideological standard-bearers of imperialism, who are seeking to make use of the difficulties that have arisen in the relations between socialist countries. The very fact of the emergence of the world socialist system is portrayed by .them as an historical accident. The purpose of fabrications of this kind is to justify the acts of military and political aggression of the imperialist powers, undermine the internationalist unity of the socialist countries and, in the long run, secure the restoration of capitalism in these countries. The Marxist-Leninist Parties feel that one of their principal tasks is to expose these ideological positions and the political line of imperialism based on them.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 1. Objective PrerequisitesThe Marxist-Leninist teaching of the causative conditionality of social development fully applies to the establishment and development of the world socialist system. The material-production and socio-economic prerequisites of the historical inevitability of the emergence of socialism as a world system are discussed in the works of Lenin and in major documents of the CPSU drawn up long before the world socialist community came into being.
The point of departure for the Marxist-Leninist analysis of these prerequisites was the recognition that international and inter-state relations were organically linked with the dialectical interaction of the productive forces and the relations of production. The economic relations between nations and national states must be examined as a special sphere of relations of production springing from the development of the productive forces. This was the approach Lenin adopted in his analysis of the establishment of national states 260 and the break-down of national barriers in Critical Remarks on the National Question.
``Developing capitalism,'' he wrote, ``knows two historical tendencies in the national question. The first is the awakening of national life and national movements, the struggle against all national oppression, and the creation of national states. The second is the development and growing frequency of international intercourse in every form, the break-down of national barriers, the creation of the international unity of capital, of economic life in general, of politics, science, etc.
``Both tendencies are a universal law of capitalism. The former predominates in the beginning of its development, the latter characterises a mature capitalism that is moving towards its transformation into socialist society.''^^*^^
Both these tendencies obviously reflect the contradictory process of the development of the productive forces and capitalist relations of production. At the initial stage of capitalism, the development of the productive forces and of capitalist relations of production was accompanied by the ruthless eradication of the economic and political dismemberment which characterised feudal society and hindered the spread of capitalism. The economic foundation of this process was that the development of commodity-money relations demanded the mobilisation of inner resources for the growth of capitalist production and for the expansion and unification chiefly of the home market. This was what gave rise to national movements and national states, ensuring capitalism's victory over feudalism, and the triumph of capitalist concentration of the economy over feudal dismemberment.
``The bourgeoisie,'' Marx and Engels wrote, ``keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier and one customs-tariff.''^^**^^
However, with their further development, the productive _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 20, p. 27.
~^^**^^ Marx and Engels, Selected Works in three volumes, Vol. 1, Moscow, 1969, pp. 112--13,
261 forces find their national-state frontiers increasingly .more narrow. The striving for the unrestricted growth of production for the sake of gain more and more frequently clashed with the limited national resources and the narrowness of the home market. In its search for resources and markets, capital stepped across the national-state frontiers. Its way was cleared by the international division of labour, the development of inter-state commodity-money relations and the formation of the world capitalist market.Along with technological progress and dependent on it, there are other extremely important indications of the development of the productive forces, such as the concentration of production and the social division of labour, the existence of a ramified industry, chiefly heavy industry, a mixed agriculture, transport and so forth. These features define the social character of production within nationalstate boundaries. But the further development of these indications is determined by the relations between nations. ``The relations of different nations among themselves,'' Marx and Engels wrote, ``depend upon the extent to which each has developed its productive forces, the division of labour and internal intercourse.... These same conditions are to be seen (given a more developed intercourse) in the relations of different nations to one another.''^^*^^
The rise and development of the international division of labour is what creates the material prerequisites for the formation of the new, socialist type of international economic relations. Geographical differences are the natural condition for the international division of labour. For instance, the existence of ore in a country favours the development of the metallurgical industry. Climatic conditions facilitate the cultivation of grain crops in one country, and of subtropical crops in another.
However, natural conditions only create the possibilities for the international division of labour. There is a gulf between this possibility and reality. These natural-climatic and geographical conditions must not be ignored, but neither should they be overrated.
It is not accidental that bourgeois economists write a great deal about natural distinctions, portraying the international division of labour as a ``gift of nature''. They ignore entirely _-_-_
~^^*^^ Marx and Engels, The German Ideology, Moscow, 1968, p. 32.
262 the socio-economic conditions for the rise and development of the international division of labour, conditions that are decisive for translating into reality the natural-climatic possibilities for this division. The distinctions in natural conditions existed under feudalism as well. However, there was hardly any international division of labour in that epoch.Within the framework of capitalist relations of production the international division of labour is a contradictory process that generates acute antagonisms between nations. On the one hand, it expands the economic relations between countries and peoples making their economic association necessary. As Marx pointed out, the internal organisation of peoples and their international relations express a definite form of the division of labour. Specialising in the manufacture of various commodities, each country has the possibility of raising the level of concentration of production, improving technologies and ultimately enhancing labour productivity. Lenin linked the development of the international division of labour with the world-wide concentration of production. ``Concentration,'' he wrote, ``has reached the point at which it is possible to make an approximate estimate of all sources of raw materials (for example, the iron ore deposits) of a country and even... of several countries, or of the whole world.... In its imperialist stage capitalism is drawing close to the most all-sided socialisation of production; it, so to speak, drags the capitalists, against their will and consciousness, into some sort of a new social order, a transitional one from complete free competition to complete socialisation.''^^*^^
But capitalism was unable to raise the international division of labour and the world-wide concentration of production to a scale ensuring the all-sided economic development and welfare of each nation. On account of capitalism's uneven development, large-scale machine production exists in only a few capitalist countries.
Under capitalism the international division of labour became widespread but assumed a lop-sided, misshapen character, expressing the antagonism between the imperialist powers, on the one hand, and the colonial and economically less developed countries, on the other. Capitalism, particularly at its imperialist stage, dooms whole countries and _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 205.
263 peoples to industrial backwardness, turning them into agrarian and raw material adjuncts of the imperialist powers. For example, according to UN statistics, the developed capitalist countries, which have less than one-third of the population of the capitalist world, account for 92 per cent of the output of the processing industry, 95 per cent of the basic metals and 96 per cent of the output of the metalworking industry.Nonetheless, the isolation and exclusiveness of the economy of the national states were broken. The world capitalist economy gradually took shape, drawing all countries into its orbit. On the one hand, a new stage of the world-wide concentration of capital and production, a stage incomparably higher than the previous one, set in. On the other hand, the development of the productive forces led to a huge intensification of the international division of labour and strengthened the economic relations between countries.
All this characterised the trend towards the world-wide socialisation of production, towards the international unity of capital. National economies were becoming segments of the world capitalist economy. ``Inasmuch as this process reflected the colossal development of the productive forces,'' states the resolution on the national question adopted by the Twelfth Party Congress, ``and inasmuch as it helped to end national isolation and to abolish the antithesis between the interests of different peoples, it has been and remains a progressive process for it prepares the material prerequisites for the future world socialist economy.''^^*^^
Internationalisation of economic life requires the planned organisation of production on a world-wide scale and the purposeful development of economic relations between countries. However, capitalist ownership creates hostile disunity not only between classes but also between nations. The world-wide socialisation of production is hindered by capitalist ownership, which is the root cause of the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists within the country and also of the oppression and enslavement of the peoples of other countries. This means that capitalist relations of production are not limited to national-state boundaries. They also characterise the relations between countries, in particular between the metropolitan countries, on _-_-_
~^^*^^ The CPSU in Resolutions..., Part I, Russ. ed., pp. 709--10.
264 the one hand, and the dependent and colonial countries, on the other. Oppression and violence by a handful of monopolies towards whole countries and peoples are a concrete expression of these relations as long as a powerful national liberation movement does not put an end to shameful colonialism. Consequently, the trend towards the internationalisation of capitalist production and exchange is accompanied by the growing resentment of the people and the spreading popular movement for the abolition of the violent forms of this economic consolidation.``Insofar as this second trend signifies the resentment of the oppressed masses towards imperialist forms of unity,'' states the same resolution passed by the Twelfth Party Congress, ``and insofar as it demands the unity of the peoples on the basis of co-operation and voluntary alliance, it has been and remains a progressive trend for it prepares the spiritual prerequisites for the future world socialist economy.''^^*^^
The basic contradiction of capitalism---the contradiction between the social character of production and the capitalist form of ownership---thus acquires international significance. It evolves into an ``irreconcilable contradiction between the process of the economic unification of the peoples and the imperialist modes of this unification''.^^**^^
The conflict between the productive forces and their national-imperialist boundaries hinders the further development and deepening of the relations between national economies.
It cannot be said that the bourgeoisie does not at all react to this contradiction. Although the bourgeoisie and, primarily, its monopoly leadership, fail to understand the essence of this contradiction, practice compels them to look for ways and means conforming to the trends towards the internationalisation of economic life. Monopoly capital seeks an outlet through the export of capital, counting on resolving its inner contradictions at the expense of other countries. However, the export of capital leads to the economic division of the world, to the formation of international monopoly alliances, and instead of weakening, this further intensifies the imperialist form of economic relations between the national economies. _-_-_
~^^*^^ The CPSU in Resolutions..., Part I, Russ. ed., p. 710.
~^^**^^ Ibid., p. 711.
265 Reflecting the internationalisation of capital, the formation of international monopolies increases national oppression and fans antagonisms between nations. Moreover, under monopoly capitalist rule the colonial system of imperialism---a system of enslavement and plunder of hundreds of millions of people in colonial and backward countries by a handful of imperialists---became part and parcel of the world capitalist system. All this characterised the decay of that system.Such are some of the reasons why capitalism was not able to consummate the creation of a united world economy. Under capitalism it is impossible to solve the national problem, safeguard national interests and remove antagonism between nations.
The imperialist powers frequently use the flag of `` commonwealth" or ``community'' to camouflage their predatory aims in colonies and dependent countries. However, pleasantsounding names like Organisation of American States or British Commonwealth of Nations are nothing but a screen for United States or British colonialism.
The capitalist countries are uniting, signing agreements and setting up various international organisations. This trend has been particularly pronounced since the Second World War. What induces the imperialist countries to unite?
Here one easily traces the trend towards the internationalisation of economic life. In the same way as by setting up monopolies and promoting state-monopoly capitalism the bourgeoisie vainly tries to resolve the main contradiction of capitalism within one country or another, and in the same way as the imperialist rulers futilely seek to resolve this contradiction on an international scale under cover of all sorts of ``commonwealths'', ``communities'' and so forth, imperialist politicians attempt to even out the discrepancy between the objective process of the internationalisation of production and the capitalist character of international economic relations with their exploiting nature and implacable hostility between nations and states.
Another reason inducing the imperialist states to set up international groups is directly linked with the emergence and development of the world socialist system. In face of the economic and political consolidation of the socialist countries, the increasing gravitation of hundreds of millions of working people towards socialism and communism and, lastly, the growing national liberation movement, the rulers of the 266 imperialist powers are trying to build up a barrier in the shape of all sorts of military-political and economic associations.
It would be a mistake to underrate the importance of these imperialist groups. Besides attempting to benefit by the internationalisation of the economy, the aim of these organisations is to obstruct the further consolidation and expansion of the world socialist community and thereby hinder the unfolding of the world revolutionary process. But these international imperialist groups suffer from internal weakness and their nature is profoundly contradictory. This is due, first, to the fact that the interests of the leading imperialist powers cannot fail to tangle on account of the inner nature of imperialism. Second, the interests of these imperialist powers constantly and daily clash with the interests of the other capitalist states that have been forced into various imperialist groups.
Contemporary experience demonstrates that under capitalism there has never been nor can there be real political and economic unity between even a few capitalist countries. Various kinds of international* imperialist groups are set up with the purpose of aligning some groups of capitalist countries against others. Here compacts between capitalist countries only accentuate their hostile economic and political isolation, their mutual rivalry in the world capitalist market. Besides, there are temporary organisations, which become inevitably eroded by internal antagonisms.
Thus, the downfall of capitalism, which began with the Great October Socialist Revolution, is the result of its decay not only in each separate capitalist country but throughout the world capitalist system as a whole. The formation of the world socialist system put an end to national oppression and to hostility between the nations and countries in that system. This was brilliantly foreseen by Lenin. ``To the old world,'' he wrote, ``the world of national oppression, national bickering, and national isolation the workers counterpose a new world, a world of the unity of the working people of all nations, a world in which there is no place for any privileges or for the slightest degree of oppression of man by man.''^^*^^
Consequently, a foundation existed for the world socialist system. The development of the productive forces under capitalism, the international socialisation of production and the international unity of capital created the material and _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 92.
267 socio-economic prerequisites for the emergence of the world socialist system, and thereby the international socialisation of production ranges beyond the narrow confines of capitalist relations of production. There appears the new, socialist type of international economic relations, to which exploitation of man by man and national oppression are alien, and which corresponds to the requirements of the productive forces.By themselves these prerequisites cannot bring about the world socialist system. But without them any intention to create a world community of socialist countries would be pointless. Material-production and socio-economic prerequisites only determine the objective historical need for turning the world capitalist system into the world socialist system and show that this process is inevitable. But to translate this need into reality there must exist concrete historical conditions and social forces. This is the fruit of the creative activity of the people and not a spontaneous process.
Here it would be quite in order to recall Lenin's theory of the proletarian revolution, according to which under imperialism, by virtue of capitalism's uneven economic and political development, the conditions for the socialist revolution and socialist construction can mature not simultaneously in all countries but at first in one or several countries. This theory fully characterises also the process of the formation of the world socialist system.
It goes without saying that the prerequisites for the formation of the world socialist system exist in equal measure for all the countries in the world capitalist system. But a genuine revolutionary situation does not mature in all countries simultaneously. For that reason the world socialist system initially embraces part of the countries of the world, and for a certain span of time the two opposing world systems---the socialist and the capitalist---have to coexist.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 2. Character and Role of the New,Marxism-Leninism teaches that every social system is a system of definite social relations, whose pivot consists of production, i.e., economic relations between people. Each social system takes shape and develops on the basis of the 268 corresponding level of material production. All this fully applies also to the world socialist system. This is the approach of the Programme of the CPSU, which defines the world socialist system as a social, economic and political community of free and sovereign peoples advancing along the road to socialism and communism and united by common interests and aims and by close bonds of international socialist solidarity. On that foundation the Programme of the CPSU analyses the socio-economic character of the new type of international relations and defines the major laws governing their development.
The solution of all these problems is the basis for a scientific elaboration of all other problems of the development of the world socialist system and of the practical tasks of the relationship between the socialist countries. The definition of the world socialist system, given in the Programme of the CPSU, characterises the anatomy of this system and shows its basic advantages over the world capitalist system.
``The world socialist system,'' the CPSU Programme states, ``is a new type of economic and political relationship between countries. The socialist countries have the same type of economic basis---social ownership of the means of production; the same type of political system---rule of the people with the working class at their head; a common ideology---- MarxismLeninism; common interests in the defence of their revolutionary gains and national independence against encroachments by the imperialist camp; and a great common goal ---communism. This socio-economic and political community constitutes the objective groundwork for lasting and friendly inter-governmental relations within the socialist camp.''^^*^^
Under present-day conditions public ownership of the means of production is confined to national-state boundaries. Every socialist country is fully independent and sovereign politically and economically. The cardinal feature of socialist relations of production on a world scale is that they are relations between socialist nations within state boundaries, i.e., relations between sovereign and equal peoples.
However, these national-state distinctions cannot hinder the implementation of socialist relations of production on an international scale. State isolation only characterises the specific historical way these relations are implemented on that scale.
_-_-_~^^*^^ The Road to Communism, p. 465.
269The imperialists, naturally, do not relish the fact that the socialist type of international economic relations have been moulded. Their agents go to all ends to misrepresent the very nature of the economic relations between the socialist countries. Moreover, the desire to kindle contradictions between the socialist countries and undermine their unity by spreading the ideology of bourgeois nationalism is one of the corner-stones of the policy pursued by the imperialist states. This policy is mirrored, in particular, .by the attempts of the imperialists to obstruct the development of the socialist countries on the basis of common laws and accentuate the national features of one country or another.
However, this policy is miscarrying in face of the growing internationalist unity and solidarity of the socialist countries on the foundation of Marxism-Leninism. The economic relations between the socialist countries are not governed by the imperialist states and their ideologists. They rest on an immutable objective foundation and, therefore, have unlimited possibilities for further development.
The economic relations between the socialist countries are socialist relations of production that are being established on an international scale. They are founded on public ownership of the means of production, which rule out the exploitation of one nation by another, and are expressed by co-operation and fraternal mutual assistance between sovereign, equal and independent peoples.
At the present stage of their development, the sum total of these relations forms a real basis, an economic system or a world socialist economy comprising the main content of the world socialist system.
The formation of the world socialist system has brought about an unparalleled conformity between the new type of international economic relations and the social character of production on an international level. The economic relations between the socialist countries thereby create additional possibilities for the planned and swift growth of the productive forces.
As is pointed out in the Programme of the CPSU, the Marxist-Leninist Parties and the peoples of the socialist states act on the principle that the success of the world socialist system as a whole depends on the contribution and efforts of each country, and therefore consider that their internationalist duty is to expand to the utmost the productive forces 270 of their respective countries. Co-operation enables each of the socialist states to make the most rational and fullest use of its resources and promote its productive forces. The new type of international economic relations influences the development of the productive forces along many channels, chiefly along the channel of the socialist international division of labour and the corresponding specialisation and co-operation of production.
A new type of international division of labour is taking shape between the socialist countries. The salient features of this division of labour are the mode of its emergence and development (according to plan, not spontaneously), the interests it expresses (of the socialist community as a whole, and not a handful of imperialist powers) and its aims and effects.
The international socialist division of labour is aimed at boosting the efficiency of social production, helping to achieve high rates of economic growth and a high standard of living in all the socialist countries, promoting industrialisation, gradually surmounting the historically-shaped distinctions in the level of economic development and creating the material basis for the more or less simultaneous transition of the socialist countries to communism within a single historical epoch.
The international socialist division of labour gives every country of the world socialist community the possibility of promoting the utmost development of branches of production for which they have favourable natural, technological and socio-economic conditions. This allows producing the maximum quantity of output with the minimum outlay of live and materialised labour. The growth of the productivity of social labour thus serves as the main criterion of the economic efficacy of the socialist international division of labour. Furthermore, this ensures rapid and stable rates of expanded reproduction.
Socialist international division of labour does not mean narrow specialisation of production in individual countries or a one-sided development of their economy. On the contrary, it goes hand in hand with the comprehensive economic development of each socialist country, i.e., with the building up in it of a manifold national economy, combining various branches (industry and agriculture, extracting and processing industry, production of the means of production and 271 consumer goods) in an optimum complex ensuring an acceleration of the rate of growth and an enhancement of the efficiency of production. In the world socialist system the productive forces can be used most fully and economically only by harmoniously combining international specialisation with the development in each socialist country of a rational complex of interrelated and mutually-supplementing branches of the national economy.
The possibility and need for the planned, rational distribution of the productive forces on an international scale are directly linked with the socialist international division of labour. Application of the socialist principles of distributing the productive forces makes it possible to reduce parallel, effort-wasting transportation and raise the level of labour productivity. Planned international distribution of production also helps to promote transport communication between socialist countries with the purpose of setting up in future a uniform transport system.
Socialist international division of labour is implemented in the shape of inter-state specialisation and co-operation of production. International specialisation means concentrating the production of definite commodities or even elements of these commodities in a given country. The development of this specialisation presupposes the planned organisation of production co-operation between socialist countries, i.e., the establishment of planned, permanent co-operation between specialised branches of production in these countries.
In addition to yielding immense economic benefits, interstate specialisation and co-operation removes unnecessary duplication, reduces the nomenclature of commodities, promotes serial production, helps to improve technologies (for instance, mass line or automated line production), provides for the efficient utilisation of the means of production and of specialists, and allows raising the cultural and technological level of personnel. In the long run, it leads to higher labour productivity, lower production costs, increased output and better quality.
Present-day inter-state specialisation and co-operation embraces all the key branches of production in the socialist countries: power engineering, fuel and raw materials industries, iron and steel, the processing industry and, in particular, heavy engineering, the chemical, light and food industries, and agriculture. All this is evidence of the growth 272 of the material-production basis and the unity of the world socialist community.
The influence exerted on the development of the productive forces by the new type of international economic relations is seen in the scientific and technological co-operation and in the exchange of advanced production expertise between the socialist countries. Socialism's evolution into a world system means the elimination not only of the class but also of the national boundaries of technological progress, boundaries which are part and parcel of the world capitalist system. For the socialist countries the possibility and need arise for close co-operation in developing science and technology. There is no place here for commercial secrets and secrets of production. Disinterested and mutually beneficial exchanges of scientific and technological information are promoted in the interest of all countries. They eliminate unnecessary duplication in research, ensure the most rational utilisation of scientific cadres and means spent on research, and speed up technological progress in all the socialist countries. This facilitates the building in these countries of the material and technical basis of socialism and communism.
The socialist countries co-operate also in training specialists. Tens of thousands of specialists and foremost workers from other socialist countries have been trained or are undergoing training at Soviet factories. Large numbers of scientific workers, engineers and technicians are trained at scientific institutions and at higher and secondary special educational institutions. A kind of division of labour, it allows giving specialists the best possible training and reduces the expenditures for this purpose.
Such are some of the key channels along which the new type of international economic relations furthers the development of the productive forces, demonstrating the decisive advantage of the world socialist system over the world capitalist system. This means that the law of conformity of the relations of production to the productive forces serves the interests of social progress in the world socialist community as a whole.
However, it would be an inexcusable simplification to assume that this conformity is achieved as soon as the world socialist system is formed. The interaction of the productive forces and the relations of production in this sphere passes through many phases of development. The first and initial __PRINTERS_P_273_COMMENT__ 18---2635 273 function of the new socialist type of international economic relations is to break and cast away the chains in which capitalism enmeshed international economic relations and which made it impossible to complete the formation of a really united world economy and ensure its harmonious and planned development. In other words, this function is to eradicate the ugly features inherited by the international division of labour from capitalism and put an end to all compulsive forms of international economic relations imposed by the monopoly kings of the leading imperialist powers on the peoples of subjugated countries.
This function has been, in effect, carried out by the countries of the socialist community. However, there are features which had been shaped over the centuries and require a long time to eradicate. One of them is the nationalstate exclusiveness of the ownership of the means of production, which is a specific element of international socialist relations of production at the present stage. However, this is not a lasting element. From the standpoint of the historical perspective, it is possible and inevitable that there will appear a social ownership which will become the economic foundation for gradually erasing the state and national isolation of peoples.
Lenin frequently stressed that in the future communist society the economy would inevitably be integrated on a world-wide scale and that on this foundation the present state boundaries would be abolished, national distinctions would be surmounted and, in the long run, nations would merge completely. ``The aim of socialism,'' he wrote, ``is not only to end the division of mankind into tiny states and the isolation of nations in any form, it is not only to bring the nations closer together but to integrate them.''^^*^^
However, he also pictured the complexity of this task, linking it with the abolition of classes and class distinctions and with the withering away of the state, and pointed out that much time would be needed for this. He wrote: ``In the same way as mankind can arrive at the abolition of classes only through a transition period of the dictatorship of the oppressed class, it can arrive at the inevitable integration of nations only through a transition period of the complete _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 146.
274 emancipation of all oppressed nations, i.e., their freedom to secede.''^^*^^The present stage of development is the transition period of the emancipation of oppressed nations which has been achieved in the world socialist system.
Already today, the decisions of the 23rd special session of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance state, the need for the further internationalisation of production makes it more and more urgently necessary to improve the economic and political relations between the socialist countries.
``The requirements of economic progress at the present stage of the development of the productive forces and of the scientific and technological revolution,'' Wladislaw Gomulka noted, ``make economic integration increasingly necessary.... The interests of socialism demand that all the socialist countries ... accelerate the process of the economic integration of our community.''^^**^^ Implementation of the decisions of the 23rd special session of CMEA will be an important landmark on the road to the internationalisation of production within the socialist community.
Lenin's theory of the complete elimination of the state and national isolation of nations and the complete integration of nations will be translated into reality with the further development of the world economy of socialism and the drawing together of the socialist nations. On the one hand, the material prerequisites for bringing the nations closer together will mature and the degree of the internationalisation of production will rise. On the other hand, the peoples will begin to understand that their development in national-state isolation comes increasingly into conflict with their basic interests. The peoples must become convinced that the further existence of the present state boundaries is a senseless and unnecessary survival of the past. They will then sweep the boundaries away and take the decisive step towards the world-wide integration of associated producers.
Let us examine in some detail these trends within the socialist community.
The material conditions for the gradual erasure of nationalstate boundaries are prepared by the entire course of the development of the productive forces. These boundaries _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 147.
~^^**^^ Pravda, July 22, 1969.
__PRINTERS_P_275_COMMENT__ 18* 275 are narrow already today for the effective utilisation of many means of production, due mainly to their technological level. Here are two examples.Druzhba, the world's longest oil pipeline (nearly 5,000 kilometres), runs across the territory of several socialist countries. Seven European socialist countries have built the Mir power grid, which has a total capacity of 34 million kw. For the oil carried by the Druzhba pipeline and for the electric energy transmitted along international power transmission lines national-state boundaries have become an anachronism. The oil and the electric energy travel between states as successfully as within a given country. Each of the participant countries benefit enormously by these internationally integrated means of production.
The tangible features of the future integrated communist economy are thus becoming more and more clear-cut today.
In this connection it would be appropriate to recall that the emergence of one or another form of ownership of the means of production is determined by the development of the productive forces and, primarily, by the division of labour. ``The various stages of development in the division of labour,'' Marx and Engels write, ``are just so many different forms of ownership, i.e., the existing stage in the division of labour determines also the relations of individuals to one another with reference to the material, instrument and product of labour.''^^*^^
If we bear in mind that national states play the role of individuals, we shall see that the emergence of international socialist ownership of the means of production is the direct result of the development of the socialist international division of labour. Under these conditions the national-state isolation of ownership of the means of production and the corresponding forms of economic relations between the socialist countries no longer conform to the attained level and, much less, to the prospects of development in the socialist international division of labour.
From this point of view the setting up, at the present stage, of joint research and industrial projects by several or all. socialist countries is an extremely noteworthy feature of the development of the world socialist system. This is also reflected in the Charter of the Council for Mutual Economic _-_-_
~^^*^^ Marx and Engels, The German Ideology, Moscow, 1968, p. 33.
276 Assistance. Article 3 of the Charter states that CMEA helps its member-states to plan and carry out joint measures in the sphere of the most effective utilisation of basic investments allocated by the member-states for the development of extracting and processing industries and also for the building of major projects of interest to two or more countries.To facilitate the enforcement of this Article, at a conference of representatives of the Communist and Workers' Parties of the CMEA countries in Moscow in June 1962 it was found expedient that as the necessity arose these countries would jointly initiate projects, set up joint research centres and designing bureaus and launch other joint undertakings.
The Joint Institute for Nuclear Research at Dubna, USSR, where research is conducted by scientists from socialist countries, has been functioning successfully for many years. Large inter-state research and designing organisations have been set up or are in the process of construction.
This reflects the internationalisation also of science as a direct productive force. Moreover, in some cases this process is outstripping the internationalisation of production proper. The socialist countries are jointly building iron and steel plants, heavy engineering factories, hydropower and thermal power stations and other large industrial projects.
However, while reflecting the internationalisation of production, the joint construction of industrial and other projects is by no means an indication that in all the given cases the national-state isolation of ownership of the means of production has been surmounted and that international socialist ownership has been established.
Enterprises become international property if the states concerned not only build them jointly but also in practice implement the right of inter-state ownership. This involves the joint decision of questions such as the management of enterprises, implementing or changing production technologies, determining the volume of production and the terms for the sale of products, distributing income, establishing the rate of inner-production accumulation, wages and salaries, and so on.
The building and joint operation of industrial and other projects, and of research and designing organisations are ushering in a new phase of the socialist international division of labour, making it possible to attain greater efficiency in 277 production. The optimum size of these projects has to be determined with consideration for the latest technological achievements and for the prospects of the socialist international division of labour, i.e., in conformity with the production potentialities and requirements of all or several socialist countries. The building of such projects is in many cases beyond the capacity of some one country. To be run with the greatest effect they have to be turned into international socialist ownership. This would signify a qualitatively new phase in the development of the socialist relations of production. In that case the importance of such industrial and other projects would range far beyond the fact that they would be exemplary for their technological level and efficiency. It is important to ascertain the socio-economic character of these enterprises and their role as material exponents of a new type of international economic relations. They are the heralds of international socialist ownership and are called on to blaze the trail to the future international integration, to an integrated communist economy.
The establishment of international socialist ownership of the means of production marks a new stage of the socialisation of the means of production on an international scale, when the means of production and, consequently, the products of labour are appropriated not by individual socialist countries but by the entire socialist community or by a group of socialist states.
This gives rise to the problem of the ways of establishing communist ownership. The point is that in future communist ownership can and must be international ownership, i.e., the economic foundation of an integrated world communist system.
However, an integrated communist ownership has to be established not only through the building of joint enterprises but also through the gradual direct socialisation of all the means of production presently existing in two forms of socialist ownership within national-state boundaries. Consequently, it is a matter of drawing together and, subsequently, integrating national means of production and raising the national forms of socialist ownership to the level of international communist ownership.
The promotion of an economically effective socialist international division of labour, the evening out of the level of development of the socialist countries, the establishment of international socialist ownership and the education of the 278 people in the spirit of socialist internationalism will thus gradually cause the present national-state boundaries to lose their importance and wither away. There will be an integrated world communist economy developing on the basis of international communist ownership of the means of production. These means of production will become the material exponents of communist relations of production on an international scale.
As a matter of fact, in the future society the very word ``international'' will lose its meaning and content. It will cease to express relations between isolated nations and states inasmuch as such nations and states will disappear.
Having emerged on the basis of the internationalisation of production, the socialist type of international economic relations will in future attain a level of development where they will lose their importance and die away. International ownership will become ownership of all the peoples and it will express relations between peoples united in a single family of associated producers without class or nationalstate divisions.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 3. Economic Laws of the DevelopmentEconomic laws are laws governing the social and production relations between people and regulating the production and distribution of material values at different stages of the development of human society. The operation of economic laws expresses vital inner ties and dependencies in the relations between people in the process of the production and distribution of material values, i.e., in the relations of production. All this is a specific feature also of the economic relations between countries. So long as the Soviet Union was the only socialist country, the sphere of operation of the economic laws of socialism was confined to one country. The formation of the world socialist system and the rise> and development of the new, socialist type of international economic relations signified that the sphere of operation of the economic laws of socialism had gone beyond the confines of one country. They are becoming the laws of the world economy of socialism, and their operation spreads to the relations between socialist countries.
279The question of the specifics of the operation of economic laws on an international scale in general and in the world socialist system jn particular has not been adequately dealt with in Marxist-Leninist economic literature. Yet under present-day conditions, when the world socialist system is becoming the decisive factor of human development, there is a particularly pressing need for research into the laws governing the relations between socialist countries.
Our point of departure has to be the specifics by which the relations of production are implemented in the given sphere. The specifics of the operation of economic laws in the world socialist system may be studied from two standpoints: first, in comparison with the world capitalist system; second, in the socialist countries individually. In the first case we deal with the basic distinctions of economic laws and of the mechanism of their operation in the two opposing world systems.
``The development of the world socialist system and of the world capitalist system,'' it is stated in the Programme of the CPSU, ``is governed by diametrically opposed laws. The world capitalist system emerged and developed in fierce struggle between the countries composing it, through the subjection and exploitation of the weaker countries by the strong, through the enslavement of hundreds of millions of people and the reduction of entire continents to the status of colonial appendages of the imperialist metropolitan countries. The formation and development of the world socialist system, on the other hand, proceeds on the basis of sovereignty and free will and in conformity with the fundamental interests of the working people of all the countries of that system.''^^*^^
In the second case we have to study the features and operation of economic laws in the various spheres within socialism.
In the world socialist system the operation of economic laws is characterised by the relations of production between sovereign and independent socialist nations. This is the cardinal feature of the operation of economic laws in the world socialist system. This feature is taken into account in the entire system of economic relations between socialist countries. To understand and consciously apply economic laws and to study their operation in the relations between socialist _-_-_
~^^*^^ The Road to Comrnunism, pp. 466--67.
280 countries it is not enough to know some one law. We must study the operation of the entire range of economic laws in their close and indivisible inter-relation.But amongst the economic laws operating in the world socialist system some are more vital and embody what is most important in the entire system of relations between socialist countries. The substance or main content of the economic relations between socialist countries is determined by the basic economic law of socialism, according to which socialist production is expanded and improved on the basis of the most up-to-date technology with the purpose of ensuring the fullest satisfaction of society's steadily growing material and cultural requirements and promoting the all-sided development of each member of society.
We still lack all-embracing data which would show to what extent the growth and improvement of production and the increasing fuller satisfaction of the people's requirements are the result of the utilisation solely of the inner potentialities of one country or another and to what extent this is the result of co-operation and mutual assistance with other socialist countries. However, the peoples of the socialist countries are now reaping the fruits of this co-operation.
The application of the basic economic law of socialism provides an important scientific basis for co-operation between socialist countries and determines not only the home but also the foreign economic policies pursued by these countries. This law is enforced through all forms of cooperation and for the reason the laws governing the economic relations between the socialist countries can be traced by analysing the operation of the basic economic law in its inter-relation with all other laws.
One of the most important distinguishing features and advantages of the world socialist system as compared with the world capitalist system is that economic proportions on an international scale can and are maintained consciously and by plan.
``Whereas the world capitalist system is governed by the law of uneven economic and political development that leads to conflict between countries,'' it is stated in the Programme of the CPSU, ``the world socialist system is governed by opposite laws, which ensure the steady and balanced growth^ of the economies of all countries belonging to that system.''^^*^^
_-_-_~^^*^^ The Road to Communism, p. 467.
281Balanced development implies an objectively necessary, balanced distribution of economic resources---manpower and means of production---between branches of the national economy, between regions, and so on. This signifies constant and consciously sustained proportionate development.
The need for planning international proportions arose together with the emergence of the international division of labour. Lenin had pointed out that ``there is a tendency towards the creation of a single world economy, regulated by the proletariat of all nations as an integral whole and according to a common plan. This tendency has already revealed itself quite clearly under capitalism and is bound to be further developed and consummated under socialism''.^^*^^
However, in the world capitalist system, as in the various capitalist countries, no conditions exist for translating this need into reality by plan. Besides, in the international arena the class antagonisms in the capitalist countries are supplemented with similarly acute national and inter-state antagonisms.
In contrast to this, social ownership of the means of production unites all working people and determines the unity of their aims not only within the given country, but also in the world socialist system as a whole. Under present-day conditions any disregard of the balanced economic relations between the socialist countries would inflict enormous harm principally on the country that takes the road to isolation.
The planned and economical utilisation of the material, financial and labour resources of all the socialist countries, with consideration for co-operation and mutual assistance between them, is becoming a vital economic need making it possible to achieve faster growth rates of production in each country and in the world socialist system as a whole.
The huge potentialities for co-ordinating the economies are broadly utilised already today in the relations between socialist countries, and this strikingly demonstrates the advantages of planning on an international scale. At the present stage, when the economies of the individual socialist countries are isolated within national-state boundaries, not only inner potentialities and requirements of production but also those which are determined by the strengthening international economic relations with other socialist countries _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p.147.
282 have to be taken into account when the optimum proportions within these countries are decided. The international division of labour is precisely the material foundation for the balanced development of the socialist world economy. Therefore, any determination of economic proportions is organically linked with international specialisation, co-operation and distribution of production. These conditions give rise to the need for proportions embracing all phases of socialist extended reproduction in the world socialist system as a whole.Planned and proportionate economic development is in practice implemented under present-day conditions through the direct co-ordination of the plans of the socialist countries, and this co-ordination predetermines the development and utilisation of all forms of economic co-operation between these countries. This co-operation was first evolved in the world socialist system and it is ensured by the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance.
Co-ordination of economic plans ushers in international socialist planning. It allows eliminating duplication in the various branches of production, ensures dependable supplies of raw and other materials and creates a stable and steadily growing world market.
Under present-day conditions the co-ordination of economic development plans does not mean that a single plan is drawn up for all socialist countries. Co-ordination fully conforms to the national sovereignty and economic and political independence of each socialist country.
At the same time, a policy of autarchy and national narrowness in economic development is alien to the socialist states. The co-ordination of plans allows each of the countries concerned to make the best use of its plant and skilled personnel, economise on social labour and increase labour productivity. This was the target of the decision adopted by the 23rd special session of CMEA devoted to the promotion of planning in the economic relations between the countries of the socialist community.
The new type of international economic relations opens up real possibilities for evening out the economic development level of the socialist countries and thereby enabling the socialist countries to accomplish the transition to communism at more or less the same time, in the course of a single epoch.
283Between socialist countries co-operation and mutual assistance assume mainly the commodity-money form. However, even these relations are permeated with the new, socialist content. This has created the conditions for the planned and conscious application of the law of value and its categories on an international scale, chiefly to the formation of prices in the world socialist market.
This market represents the totality of foreign trade relations between the socialist countries. Its distinguishing features are the planning and stability of prices, which are established by agreement between the socialist countries and are not subject to speculative or market fluctuations. The formation of prices in the world socialist market is free of phenomena like price scissors, non-equivalent exchange, dumping and so forth, which are widely employed by the imperialist states to obtain monopoly-high profits by robbing the peoples of other countries.
In the world socialist market the national interests of each country are harmoniously combined with the international interests of the world socialist community as a whole. Here prices express international socialist relations of production: fraternal co-operation and mutual assistance. The planning of prices in the world socialist market is therefore of immense practical importance inasmuch as it furthers the realisation of these relations.
The attainment of the highest possible level of efficiency in production through balanced inter-state specialisation and economic, scientific and technological co-operation and so forth, presupposes the need for economic incentives not only within each socialist country but also between these countries. The historic mission of the relations of production in any sphere is the creation of incentives for the growth of production. In other words, relations of production can help to develop the productive forces only in the event the people are morally and materially interested in the growth and improvement of production.
All this fully applies also to socialist relations of production, particularly to their inter-state sphere. The socialist governments, which act on behalf of their peoples, have to be materially and morally interested in promoting inter-state specialisation and economic, scientific and technological cooperation, in extending commodity circulation and in the joint building of industrial and other projects.
284This calls forth the need for applying cost accounting also to the sphere of inter-state relations, in order to ensure a steady rise of the economic efficacy of production. As in the socialist countries themselves, cost accounting in the interstate sphere is indivisibly linked with the utilisation of commodity-money relations and categories of the law of value such as value, cost, profit, price, profitability and so on.
However, these categories are consciously applied exclusively through the mechanism of planning. Generally speaking, as a method of ensuring the economic efficiency of production cost accounting is inconceivable without planning, regardless of whether it concerns an individual enterprise, a branch of industry, the national economy as a whole or the sphere of inter-state relations. It should be borne in mind that it is not possible under present-day conditions to utilise the mechanism of planning directly in this sphere (for instance by drawing up a single inter-state plan and setting up the corresponding planning agency). Indirect methods of planning have, therefore, to be employed. The co-ordination of the plans of the CMEA member-states is the most acceptable form of planning envisaging the allsided and full utilisation of the principles of cost accounting.
In inter-state relations the principles of cost accounting are applied somewhat differently than in each country. Here cost accounting relations are established between sovereign and independent socialist states that voluntarily co-ordinate their economic development plans and implement the socialist international division of labour. In one way or another, all the socialist countries hold a monopoly in foreign economic relations. This makes its imprint on the utilisation of all the principles of cost accounting in the relations between them.
__ALPHA_LVL2__ 4. Principles of Political RelationsWe have examined the character and some of the laws governing the development of the new, socialist type of international economic relations. Of decisive importance in promoting these relations are the scientific policy pursued by the Communist and Workers' Parties and the socialist states and 285 their practical work of strengthening their unity and solidarity.
A new type of inter-state political relations reflecting the economic, political and ideological community of the socialist countries and the unity of their aims came into being with the formation of the world socialist system.
Lenin's proposition that politics are the concentrated expression, generalisation and consummation of the economy is strikingly manifested in the relations between the socialist countries. It was precisely the emergence of the world socialist economy as the totality of the relations of production between the socialist countries that gave rise to the new type of political relations and invested them with the new, socialist content. Formulated scientifically, the inter-state policy pursued by the socialist countries serves as the criterion for the unerring solution of key problems of the development of the world socialist system. This means that with the objective requirements of the development of the world socialist community as a whole and of each socialist country separately as its point of departure this policy has to decide the ways and means of ensuring the utilisation of all the potentialities offered by mutual assistance and co-operation between the socialist countries. The main purport and designation of these relations is to secure the utmost strengthening of the unity and solidarity of the countries of the socialist community. This policy mirrors the vital requirements of the development of each socialist country's economy and of the entire world socialist economy. It conforms to the aspirations of millions of people in these countries and their work of building socialism and communism. In historic documents such as the 1957 Declaration, the 1960 Statement and the 1969 Main Document the economic development of the world socialist system is analysed on the basis of a profound, scientifically substantiated political approach to the problem, and they show the prospects for the further consolidation and expansion of relations and co-operation between the socialist countries. These documents fully mirror Lenin's precept that ``without a correct political approach to the matter the given class will be unable to stay on top, and, consequently, will be incapable of solving its production problem either''.^^*^^ This also applies in toto to the development of the world socialist _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 84
286 system, where on the basis of scientific prevision the interstate policy of the socialist countries not only reflects the level of development attained by the world socialist system but also defines the prospects and trends of its further advance. This policy is an active transformative force which allows making the fullest use of the basic advantages of the world socialist system over the world capitalist system.In the political relations between the socialist states their national and international tasks are combined harmoniously. Based on the Leninist principle of socialist internationalism, the policy of each socialist country takes the national interests of all the other socialist countries into account. This policy does not infringe on the national sovereignty, equality and independence of other peoples. More, one of the cardinal tasks of the political co-operation between socialist countries is to strengthen the sovereignty and independence of each country. None of the countries belonging to the world socialist community, it is emphasised in the Programme of the CPSU, ``have, nor can have, any special rights or privileges''.^^*^^ Having proclaimed the policy of building communism in the USSR, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union regards this policy not only as the internal affair of the Soviet people but also as an internationalist task conforming to the interests of all the socialist countries.
``The construction of communism in the USSR,'' states the Programme of the CPSU, ``promotes the interests of every country of the socialist community, for it increases the economic might and defence potential of the world socialist camp and provides progressively favourable opportunities for the USSR to expand its economic and cultural co-operation with the other socialist countries and increase the assistance and support it renders them.''^^**^^
The relationship between the world economy and world policy of socialism is a special sphere of the interaction between the basis and the superstructure. With the emergence of the world socialist economy as the totality of the relations of production between the socialist countries, the ideological and political superstructure expanded. The functions of all superstructural institutions of the socialist type, chiefly of the socialist states, developed.
_-_-_~^^*^^ The Road to Communism, p. 466.
~^^**^^ Ibid., p. 580.
287However, it would be inaccurate to think that in their relations with each other the socialist states fulfil solely the functions of political superstructural institutions. They are first and foremost the owners of the means of production, and in this capacity they belong not to the superstructure but to the basis of society, to its economic system. These states, it should be borne in mind, are the decisive force implementing socialist relations of production not only individually but also within the world socialist system as a whole. No economic law operating in the world socialist system can be realised outside the economic-organisational activity of the socialist states.
At the same time, the development of relations between the socialist countries should not be taken to mean solely the promotion of economic-organisational activity. With the formation of the world socialist system, the political activity of the socialist states developed alongside their economic activity. The socialist countries pursue a co-ordinated policy which is determined at every stage of the development of the world socialist system not only by the tasks of economic co-operation but also by the alignment of class forces within the socialist countries and in the world and by the concrete tasks of socialist and communist construction.
The political relations between the socialist states are a major factor strengthening their economic and political sovereignty and independence and enhancing their international prestige. By co-ordinating their foreign policy they are able to work out a common line on key problems of international life.
A striking demonstration of unanimity in international politics was the Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties held in Moscow in June 1969, which contributed towards the consolidation of the world communist movement and the world front of forces fighting for peace, democracy, national independence and socialism. The socialist community is the mainstay of this policy. The unity and solidarity of the socialist countries is the key factor safeguarding peace and, thereby, accelerating the building of socialism and communism.
The development of the functions of the socialist states is also manifested in the expansion of their cultural and educational tasks. First, the Communist and Workers' Parties and the socialist states devote considerable attention to educating 288 the people in the spirit of socialist internationalism and a correct combination of patriotism and internationalism. The task of bringing up the new man of communist society and cultivating socialist and communist morals cannot conceivably be carried out without such education. Second, the utmost development of cultural relations helping to enrich and promote world culture and speed up cultural and technological progress in the socialist countries is also a distinguishing feature of the world socialist system. Lastly, military and political co-operation in safeguarding the socialist countries against imperialist aggression became vital with the formation of the world socialist system.
Under present-day conditions the decisive role in the development of the world socialist system is played by the nationally isolated socialist states. However, inter-state organisations co-ordinating their economies and policy are already functioning. One of them is the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance. No inter-state organisation of the capitalist type is able to raise and carry out tasks such as CMEA is successfully fulfilling. CMEA took shape as the product of the new, socialist type of international economic relations and as a result of the consolidation of the unity and solidarity of the socialist countries. New tasks of an unparalleled scale and unprecedented importance have been set by the 23rd special session of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance.
To safeguard their security the socialist countries have set up and strengthened their own centre of collective defence--- the Warsaw Treaty Organisation, which is a major factor of peace in Europe and the rest of the world.
__*_*_*__Monolithic unity determined by the objective conditions of their emergence and development is a distinguishing feature of the socialist countries. However, this unity is not achieved automatically, without surmounting certain difficulties. Development is inconceivable either in nature or society without the simultaneous unity and struggle between opposites, without surmounting contradictions.
With the formation of the world socialist system there arose the need to specify the very concepts of internal and 289 external, antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions of social development. In socio-economic literature we find mention of the fact that there are contradictions within the people of a socialist country and external contradictions between the people of this country and the peoples of other countries. The first group of contradictions (within a people) is classified as non-antagonistic, and the second group as antagonistic.
This interpretation of the nature of contradictions is incorrect. The very terms contradictions ``within a people" and ``between peoples" are not very happy. They conceal the class character of contradictions, giving in its stead a non-class national character.
Marxism-Leninism teaches that contradictions and antagonisms between nations always have a class source and, in this sense, they are derivatives. It is obvious, for instance, that by far not all the contradictions within a people of one country or another that has taken the road to socialism are non-antagonistic. It is universally fcnown that in all countries the main contradiction of the period of transition from capitalism to socialism is the contradiction between socialism, which is growing and gaining strength, and capitalism, which is dying. This is an antagonistic contradiction and it is expressed by Lenin's formula of ``who will win''.
It should be noted that in some socialist countries violent methods of struggle were not employed in all cases to resolve this contradiction, i.e., to abolish capitalist ownership of the means of production and liquidate the exploiting classes. Depending on the degree of resistance put up by the dying classes, the above-mentioned contradiction can be surmounted by relatively peaceful means. However, this does not change the antagonistic character of the contradiction itself, inasmuch as it concerns opposing hostile and irreconcilable social forces, of which one side is doomed while the other is destined to grow and become strong. The crux of the matter is that the ways and methods of surmounting the contradiction depend on the specific historical conditions. For instance, in countries where all the anti-imperialist and antifeudal forces were united in a national democratic front, embracing the national bourgeoisie, it was found that in the course of socialist transformations it was possible to employ relatively peaceful means of abolishing capitalist ownership and even to re-educate the national bourgeoisie. Some people 290 try to use this fact to draw the conclusion that the antagonistic contradictions between the working class and the national bourgeoisie become non-antagonistic inasmuch as they can be resolved in a relatively peaceful way.
Conclusions of this kind cannot be accepted. Actually, it is not that the contradictions themselves lose their classantagonistic character but that under specific conditions the possibility arises of settling them in a relatively peaceful manner. However, it should not be forgotten that even under these conditions the class struggle sometimes becomes quite acute as a result of the fierce resistance of the ruling clique of the national bourgeoisie to socialist construction.
Recognition that the contradictions within a people can change from antagonistic to non-antagonistic borders on the Right-wing socialist theory of ``class peace" and is incompatible with Marxism-Leninism. It is not a case of conciliation between classes but of the subordination of the exploiting classes to the will of the working people, to the dictatorship of the proletariat, of the liquidation of these classes, not by violent means but through relatively peaceful economic, political and ideological work. The class and, consequently, the national antagonism disappears only with the liquidation of the exploiting classes, no matter what methods are used--- peaceful or military, educational or violent.
As regards the contradictions between individual socialist countries, they can by no means be described as external and antagonistic contradictions. As we have already pointed out, the world socialist system has no soil for alienation. Between socialist countries contradictions are non-antagonistic and temporary inasmuch as the relations between countries belonging to the socialist community are based on one and the same socio-economic system and on a coincidence of basic interests.
Contradictions of this kind are surmounted by joint comradely consultations and fraternal criticism and self-criticism. By criticising various mistakes in fundamental questions of Marxism-Leninism, the fraternal Parties and their international meetings pursue the aim of pointing*out the danger of mistakes of this kind and helping to rectify them.
In the event a Party or socialist country disregards comradely criticism and insists on going forward with its errors instead of rectifying them, and ignores the collective opinion of the majority of fraternal Parties, the differences may __PRINTERS_P_293_COMMENT__ 19* 291 become acute and sometimes grow into a conflict. When this happens it signifies a direct departure from class MarxistLeninist positions, from proletarian internationalism. But whatever difficulties may arise in the relations between socialist countries, they cannot shake these countries' awareness that they have a great historic mission.
``The formation of international relations of a new type is a complex and manifold process linked with overcoming the grim heritage left by the age-long rule of the exploiting classes---national exclusiveness, strife and mistrust. The differences in the levels of economic and social development, class structure, historical and cultural traditions inherited from the past give rise to objective difficulties in the fulfilment of such essential tasks as the establishment of comprehensive co-operation and the organisation of a system of socialist international division of labour.''^^*^^
The experience of economic and political relations shows that ``despite certain difficulties a healthy process of the consolidation of the socialist countries is under way, a process which finds concrete embodiment in the promotion of their all-round co-operation.''^^**^^
A study of the laws governing the formation and development of the world socialist system forcefully bears out the great transformative force of Marxism-Leninism and its conclusions that the development of human society is determined by objective conditions. Today, when the ideas of socialism and communism are winning the minds of millions of people, the development of the world socialist system is a great school confirming these ideas in practice. The more successfully the socialist countries advance towards socialism and communism, the more united will they be and the brighter will be the beacon they have lit for the liberation struggle of the working people of the whole world.
_-_-_~^^*^^ 50th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, p. 53.
~^^**^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 145.
[292] __ALPHA_LVL1__ DEVELOPMENT
The history of the international working-class movement shows that the strategy and tactics of the proletarian class struggle are being constantly improved. At the close of the 19th century Frederick Engels noted that history had substantially changed the conditions and character of revolutionary action. ``Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organisation,'' he wrote, ``the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves have already grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for, body and soul. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that.''^^*^^
The need for the creative development of the Marxist theory and tactics of the working-class movement became more urgent than ever before at the beginning of the 20th century when the world capitalist system had reached its highest and last stage and had, as a whole, matured for the socialist revolution. On the basis of Marx's revolutionary teaching Lenin summed up the experience of the workingclass struggle throughout the world and substantially augmented it with new scientific conclusions about the epoch of imperialism and proletarian revolutions.
No sooner had Lenin's theoretical works been published than bourgeois sociologists and revisionists began to counterpose the teaching of Marx and Engels to them. To this day they assert that Marxism and Leninism are two different teachings, isolated from one another. They hope to divorce _-_-_
~^^*^^ Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 1, Moscow, 1969, p. 200.
293 two indivisibly linked parts of the proletariat's balanced philosophy and thereby undermine its revolutionary impact on the masses. To this end they bend every effort to ``prove'' that Leninism is the product ``solely of Russian conditions'', that the Leninist theory of socialist revolution is unacceptable to the highly developed capitalist countries with their powerful economy and massive working class.These attempts to belittle and localise the significance of Lenin's teaching and separate it from the history of the world working-class movement are quite obviously ridiculous. The initiators of these attempts deliberately say nothing of the internationalist essence of Lenin's work. He never confused the specifics of one country or another with the general laws of the development of the class struggle. The international revolutionary movement, Lenin said, does not and cannot develop evenly and in identical forms in different countries. Every country contributes its own valuable and specific features to the common stream. The full and all-round utilisation of all revolutionary opportunities comes only as a result of the class struggle of the workers in the various countries.^^*^^
The working-class movement, Lenin taught, is essentially international. This means that in the given country the working-class movement can be successful provided it uses the experience of other countries. ``What is required is the ability to treat these experiences critically and to test them independently. He who realises how enormously the modern working-class movement has grown and branched out will understand what a reserve of theoretical forces and political (as well as revolutionary) experience is required to carry out this task.''^^**^^ Lenin always insisted that only an objective consideration of the sum total of relations between absolutely all the classes in a given society, and a consideration of the relations between it and other societies can serve as a basis for the correct tactics of the advanced class.^^***^^
By comprehensively studying the internal and external conditions of the development of the class struggle in the given country and comparing the revolutionary practice of the working class of that country with a critical assessment of the experience of the world proletariat, Marxist-Leninist _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 15, p. 187.
~^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 370.
~^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 21, p. 75.
294 theory determines the concrete tasks and specific features of the working-class movement in each country. But general laws of social development have always served as the point of departure for determining these tasks and features. The general laws of the period of the revolutionary downfall of capitalism came into operation when the epoch of imperialism was ushered in. The leading role of the proletariat and its Party is a general law of socialist revolutions. Emphasising this point, Lenin explained that it was not at all a matter of the numerical preponderance of the proletariat. The leading role was accorded to the proletariat because of its organisation, unity, political maturity and the prestige It enjoyed among the working masses taking part in the revolution. Lenin's teaching of the hegemony of the proletariat in the bourgeois-democratic and socialist revolutions has not lost its political significance to this day. The facts of reality irrefutably prove that the forces of the internal and world imperialist reaction can be overcome only when the proletarian vanguard rallies all the forces of the liberation movement within the given country and on an international scale. The proletariat is the only class capable of abolishing every form of exploitation and violence, direct the mass movement towards socialism and finally deliver mankind from economic, political and national oppression.The whole theory and practice of socialist construction in the USSR and the fraternal countries expose the speciousness of the assertions of bourgeois ideologists and of the opportunists that the working class accomplishes the revolution to the detriment of society because it pursues special, mercenary aims. Reinforcing the conclusions of Marx and Engels, Lenin advanced new, incontestable proof that the proletariat does not and cannot have interests and aims incompatible with the interests of all the other working people. The half-century history of the rise and development of Soviet society and the history of socialist reconstruction in other countries leave no doubt as to the real role played by the working class. The course of history has confirmed in practice that the interests of the working class are the cognised interests of all working people, and that its aims are inseparably linked with the general progress of society as a whole.
Lenin had always based his conclusions on the general Marxist view that as a class the proletariat has the historical 295 mission of delivering not only itself but the whole of society from the age-long rule of oppressors, and preparing all mankind for the transition to the most just social system, to communism. But the proletariat cannot achieve this aim without fighting for the maximum democracy and political freedoms within the framework of the old system. Lenin always contended that ``in the same way as there can be no victorious socialism that does not practise full democracy, so the proletariat cannot prepare for its victory over the bourgeoisie without an all-round, consistent and revolutionary struggle for democracy''.^^*^^ The proletariat's consistent and dedicated struggle for peace and friendship among nations is a vivid example of the fulfilment of humanistic tasks. The question of peace, Lenin said, is ``the crucial issue of today.... On this issue the proletariat truly represents the whole nation, all live and honest people in all classes, the vast majority of the petty bourgeoisie''.^^**^^
Lenin's theoretical contribution to the Marxist teaching of the historical mission of the working class had a powerful impact on the entire international proletariat. But while he called on the fraternal Parties to learn from the experience of the Communists and working class of the Soviet Union, Lenin warned them against mechanically adopting the Russian experience. He emphasised, however, that despite the certain inimitable features of the revolutionary struggle of the Russian proletariat, Bolshevism ``is suitable as a model of tactics for everybody''. Substantiated and developed by Lenin, the basic laws governing the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat before and after the seizure of power serve the presentday working-class movement as a reliable compass.
__*_*_*__The Marxist-Leninist teaching that as the most advanced social force of modern times the working class plays the role of vanguard has been enlarged on in the decisions of congresses and conferences of the CPSU and of plenary meetings of the CC CPSU. In January 1924 the Party Central Committee appealed to the workers to make up for the loss of the _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 144.
~^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 26, p. 99.
296 great leader by strengthening in every possible way the unity of the working class and its Party. ``The stronger this unity,'' the appeal stated, ``the more unbreakable this militant bond and the broader the mass of proletarians who uphold and foster this unity, the more unshakable, solid and victorious will the working-class movement become and the easier will it be to surmount the difficulties along the tortuous path of the proletarian revolution.''^^*^^Marxists-Leninists have always regarded the unity between the working class and its Party as the guarantee of victory over the class enemy. The working class of Russia, which fought under the leadership of the Bolsheviks in 1917 and during the Civil War, ``when the dedicated heroism of the workers saved the great cause of the proletariat'',^^**^^ showed the proletariat of the whole world that the unbreakable unity between the working class and its Party not only saved the gains of the Revolution but made it possible to build socialism in one country.
The Party's unflagging efforts to strengthen its proletarian nucleus served as an example for the young fraternal Parties of other countries. From the Soviet Communists they learned consistently to apply the Leninist principle of admitting to membership first and foremost the finest people of the working class. ``Massive homogeneity achieved by increasing the percentage of proletarians in it,'' it is stated in a resolution adopted by the Thirteenth Party Congress, ``is one of the best guarantees against the penetration of petty-bourgeois influence into the Party and, at the same time, a most reliable earnest of the Party's invincible unity on the principles of Leninism.'' The Marxist-Leninist Party, the resolution underscored, ``must steadfastly pursue a revolutionary proletarian policy in all its work and, at the same time, by its social composition (decisive predominance of proletarian elements in the Party) ensure the consistent implementation of this policy''.^^***^^
However, mounting resistance to the consolidation of the Marxist-Leninist vanguard's link with the broad proletarian masses came from Trotskyite elements. At its plenary meeting in January 1925, the Party CC denouced Trotsky's _-_-_
~^^*^^ The CPSU in Resolutions... , Part I, Russ. ed., p. 808.
~^^**^^ Ibid.
~^^***^^ Ibid., Part II, p. 16.
297 anti-Leninist concepts and noted that they sprang from the semi-Menshevist interpretation of the proletariat's role with regard to the non-proletarian and semi-proletarian sections of the population, and its belittlement of the Party's role in the revolution and in socialist construction. During the discussion forced on the Party by Trotsky in 1924--1925, he started another assault on the foundations of the Bolshevik world outlook. Rejecting Lenin's teaching on the motive forces in the three Russian revolutions and insisting on the adoption of his own bankrupt theory of permanent revolution, Trotsky sought to revise the Party's firm line of steering towards a lasting alliance between the proletariat and the working peasant masses. The Central Committee condemned Trotsky's anti-Leninist sorties and passed a decision to explain to the non-Party worker and peasant masses that Trotskyism was ``leading to a rupture of the alliance between the working class and the peasantry''.^^*^^Before and after the conquest of power, the question of the proletariat's allies was of paramount significance to the revolutionary movement of many countries of Europe and other continents. The CPSU's decisions enlarging on the pertinent Leninist propositions were, therefore, closely studied by foreign Communists. They wanted to know how the alliance between the working class and the peasants would shape out after the dictatorship of the proletariat was established. The answer to this question was the resolution passed by the Fourteenth Party Conference, which indicated that after the socialist revolution working-class leadership is manifested in the form of political, economic and cultural assistance from the proletarian state to the peasants and other sections of the working people. Proletarian leadership is effective only when it is guided by the Communist Party, which is the genuine spokesman of the working class and all other working people of town and country in their joint endeavour in building socialism.^^**^^
A major contribution towards unfolding the prospects of the world working-class movement was the ``Theses on the Tasks of the Comintern and the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks)" adopted at the Fourteenth Party Conference. Analysing the thesis advanced by Lenin in 1915 _-_-_
~^^*^^ The CPSU in Resolutions..., Part I, Russ. ed., p. 115.
~^^**^^ Ibid., pp. 132--34.
298 that the socialist revolution ``may and probably will consist of many years of fighting, of several periods of onslaught with intervals of counter-revolutionary convulsions of the bourgeois system'',^^*^^ the Fourteenth Party Conference noted that Lenin's prevision ``is now being fully borne out by the course of the world revolution''.^^**^^ On the basis of this theoretical conclusion and the new conditions, Lenin and the Party arrived at an explicit definition of the revolutionary situation and showed that it was possible to turn it into revolution. The Party emphatically denounced the adventurist aspirations of the Trotskyites to export revolution to other countries, debunking their attempts to make socialist construction in the USSR dependent on the rate of development of the world revolution and firmly following the Leninist line of moving from the New Economic Policy to socialism.Genuine proletarian internationalism, it was stressed at the Fourteenth Party Conference, by no means implied pushing the revolution artificially in the West, planting it from without by means of bayonets. It meant the consistent fulfilment of Lenin's injunction of doing ``the utmost possible in one country for the development, support and awakening of the revolution in all countries''.^^***^^ True to its internationalist duty, the Party charted the only correct road of struggle for the triumph of the new social system. ``There is every reason to hope,'' it was stated in the theses of the Fourteenth Party Conference, ``that with its own resources and with the support of the international proletariat, as the experience of the past eight years has already proved, the USSR will.be able to continue promoting its economy, serving as a major factor of the world revolution and helping the workers of other countries to prepare their proletarian revolution.''^^****^^
The Conference recalled that before October 1917, in forecasting the course of events, Lenin underscored the tremendous importance of the assistance of the Russian working class to the proletariat of the West at the decisive stage of the struggle with imperialism. ``The Russian proletariat,'' he wrote to the Swiss workers on the eve of his departure for _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 399.
~^^**^^ The CPSU in Resolutions..., Part II, Russ. ed., p. 163.
~^^***^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 292.
~^^****^^ The CPSU in Resolutions..., Part II, Russ. ed., pp. 165--66.
299 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1971/DRTC378/20070608/378.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2007.06.08) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [*]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ Russia, ``...can facilitate the rise of a situation in which its chief, its most trustworthy and most reliable collaborator, the European and American socialist proletariat, could join the decisive battles.''^^*^^ Both prior to and after the conquest of political power, the Party regarded the proletariat of the developed capitalist countries as the principal political ally of the working class of Russia in the process of the revolutionary transformation of the world.The theses of the Fourteenth Party Congress contained a new assessment of the rate at which the revolutionary process was growing in the West. They stated bluntly that the world revolution was developing much slower than might have been expected initially after October 1917. On the other hand, the Party was immeasurably more confident that ``the first victorious proletarian revolution (USSR) could hold out by itself (with certain support from the workers of other countries) for a much longer period than was believed at the beginning of the revolution''.^^**^^ On this basis the Party considered that the building of socialism in the USSR was the prime internationalist duty of the Soviet workers, that ``our success in building up the socialist economy is in itself a most important factor of the mounting world proletarian revolution"^^***^^
Analysing the experience accumulated by the international working-class movement after the October Revolution, the Party came to the conclusion that ``not only the question of the rate and period of the growth of the world revolution but also the question of its route are being resolved not quite in the manner that was expected when the revolution started''.^^****^^ The ebb of the revolutionary wave in some countries was compensated by a high tide in other countries. The possibility arose of breaching imperialism's world chain in the Far East, in the Balkans and some other regions of Southeast Europe. The rapid growth of the national liberation movement in colonial and dependent countries was a powerful stimulant of the class struggle of the European proletariat.
In view of the mounting political activity of the working class of Europe and America, special significance was acquired by the tactics of the Communist Parties aimed at _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 372.
~^^**^^ The CPSU in Resolutions..., Part II, Russ. ed., p. 167.
~^^***^^ Ibid., p. 170.
~^^****^^ Ibid.
300 winning greater influence among the broad proletarian masses and establishing contact with the Social-Democratic Parties. However, these tactics were strongly opposed by Trotsky, Radek and other divisive elements, who accused consistent Leninists of capitulating to the Right-wing leadership of the Social-Democratic movement. The Trotskyites refused to consider the fact that in a situation where the world revolution had slowed down and intervention against the USSR was being frenziedly prepared, the ``drawing together of the proletariat of the advanced countries with the proletariat of the USSR under the slogan chiefly of the struggle for peace, the struggle against new imperialist wars and armed attack on the USSR" was the only possible means of upholding the gains of the October Revolution in the USSR and helping the class brothers abroad in their difficult struggle against capitalism. The Party and the Comintern sharply denounced the sectarian and adventurist intrigues of the Trotskyites. From the delegates to the Fourteenth Party Congress, the Central Committee received explicit instructions ``to strengthen in every way the alliance of the proletariat of the USSR, the bulwark of the world revolution, with the West European proletariat and the oppressed peoples'',^^*^^ and steer towards the development and triumph of the international proletarian revolution.Taking into account the complex situation in which the class battles of the proletariat were raging in the developed capitalist countries, the Fifteenth Party Conference set the Soviet trade unions the task of rendering ``fraternal assistance to the foreign workers in their struggle against the onslaught of capitalism and giving them all possible help in perceiving their true class interests and shaking off the influence of the reformist leaders''.^^**^^ Furthermore, the Conference recorded its appreciation of the work conducted by the Soviet trade unions to establish fraternal relations with West European workers through exchanges of delegations. The Conference recommended that the Ail-Union Central Council of Trade Unions should lend the Profintern (Trade Unions International) greater support and energetically continue the struggle for the unity of the international trade-union movement.^^***^^
_-_-_~^^*^^ The CPSU in Resolutions. .., Part II, Russ. ed., p. 195.
~^^**^^ Ibid., p. 328.
~^^***^^ Ibid.
301Continuing their attacks on the Party's general line, the leaders of the Trotsky-Zinoviev opposition vainly sought to disrupt the united working-class front tactics of the Communist International. The Fifteenth Party Conference exposed the true meaning of their ``Left'' verbiage: ``Having no faith in the inner forces of our Revolution and growing desperate in face of the delay of the world revolution,, the opposition bloc is sliding from a Marxist analysis of the class forces of the revolution to `ultra-Left' self-deceit and ' revolutionary' adventurism, rejecting the fact of the partial capitalist stabilisation and thereby veering towards putschism.
``Hence, the opposition demand for a revision of the united front tactics....
``Hence the support of the opposition bloc for the ' ultraLeft' tub-thumpers.''^^*^^
At the Fifteenth Party Conference it was stressed that the Communists of all countries had to press forward with their efforts to unite the working-class forces against the imperialist bourgeoisie. To achieve this purpose, it was pointed out at the Conference, the ``Communist Parties have to win over the millions of workers still siding with the reformist trade unions and the Second International''.^^**^^ This tactical line, which was consistently pursued by the Party and the Comintern, derived directly from the basic propositions of Lenin's programme work Left-wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder.
But the leaders of the old, opportunist International, which was restored in the early 1920s, and of the Social-Democratic Parties went to all lengths to impede the growth of revolutionary sentiments in the working class. The Sixth Comintern Congress, held in August 1928, brought to light the specific reasons behind the vitality of reformism in the European and American working-class movement.
In opposition to the divisive activities of the opportunists directed at breaking up the proletarian front, the Congress recommended that the fraternal Parties should launch a consistent struggle for class unity in the large workers' organisations (trade unions, co-operatives, cultural and sports associations, and so forth).^^***^^
_-_-_~^^*^^ The CPSU in Resolutions..., Part II, Russ. ed., p. 334.
~^^**^^ Ibid.
~^^***^^ The Communist International in Documents, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1933, pp. 775--76.
302The early 1930s witnessed the progressive shattering of the partial stabilisation of capitalism, the aggravation of all the contradictions of the imperialist system and a mounting threat of further wars of aggression.
The break-down of capitalist stabilisation as a result of the world crisis showed the total untenability of the ``theory'' that the inner contradictions of capitalism relax in the epoch of monopolies and trusts. In reply to the fascisation of the state apparatus in a number of bourgeois countries and to the offensive of capitalism, the proletariat expanded the strike struggle. The unemployed took action on an increasing scale and there was a growth of the number of political demonstrations, many of which ended in open clashes with the authorities. Combined with the national liberation movement in China, India and other Eastern countries, the revolutionary upsurge of the world working-class movement during the years of the economic crisis steadily undermined imperialist domination.
Opportunely responding to the regrouping of forces caused by the aggravation of the class contradictions and the increased activity of the proletarian masses, the Communist Parties directed the political battles of the working class. The Sixteenth Party Congress endorsed the Leninist tactics of the fraternal Parties and laid special emphasis on the need for a further systematic struggle by the Comintern ``to win over to its side not only non-Party but also Social-Democratic workers on the basis of the Bolshevik tactics of a united front from below''.^^*^^ In the mid-1980s the united front tactics became the key condition for the struggle of the international proletariat against the growing threat of fascism.
While preparing for the Seventh Comintern Congress, its 65 sections, including the CPSU, considered that it was necessary to work out new tactics for the international working-class and communist movement. Taking the experience of the struggle against fascism into account, Georgi Dimitrov and other leaders of the Comintern raised the question of re-examining the incorrect assessment which qualified SocialDemocracy as social-fascism and of abandoning the unfounded approach to it as to the main social bulwark of the bourgeoisie. The sectarian errors and dogmatism of some fraternal Parties were an obstacle to drawing the broad _-_-_
~^^*^^ The CPSU in Resolutions..., Part III, Russ. ed., p. 35.
303 masses of the proletariat and other sections of the working people into the struggle against fascism, and these had to be overcome in order to turn the united front tactics into a means of mass struggle against the fascist offensive.Like the other sections of the Comintern, the CPSU wholeheartedly supported Dimitrov's proposal for amending the united front tactics. ``Instead of employing them exclusively as a manoeuvre to expose the Social-Democratic Parties,'' it is stated in this proposal, ``...we ought to turn them into an effective factor of unfolding the mass struggle against the fascist offensive.'' The Dimitrov theses, endorsed by the preparatory committee for the Seventh Comintern Congress, stated: ``We have to abandon the line that the united front can be conducted exclusively from below and, at the same time, cease to regard any appeal to the leadership of the Social-Democratic Party as opportunistic.''^^*^^
Another point made in the theses was: ``The militant initiative of the masses has to be encouraged without petty tutelage by the Communist Parties over the united front bodies: instead of declarations about the hegemony of the Communist Party, the leadership of the Communist Party must be implemented in practice." The theses drew attention to the need for ``reconsidering our approach to the SocialDemocratic and non-partisan workers in all our mass work, agitation and propaganda''.^^**^^ From the standpoint of the new tasks of the united working-class front special emphasis was laid on a differentiated approach in assessing the SocialDemocratic Parties and their organisations. At the same time, it was unequivocally stated that there was a possibility of uniting with the Social-Democratic organisations that had rejected the policy of conciliation with the bourgeoisie and gone over to revolutionary struggle. Tactics allowing for the joint struggle of differently oriented trade unions on the basis of a common anti-fascist platform were taking shape also in the world trade union movement.^^***^^
The Seventh World Congress of the Communist International approved the appeals of the Comintern Executive Committee, issued in March 1933, October 1934 and April 1935, calling on the Communist and Social-Democratic Parties to _-_-_
~^^*^^ Voprosy istorii KPSS, 1965, No. 7, p. 84.
~^^**^^ Ibid.
~^^***^^ Ibid., p. 86.
304 combine their efforts in the struggle against fascism, the capitalist offensive and war. The Congress made it binding on all Communist Parties ``to secure the establishment of a united front on both a national and an international scale".^^*^^ Taking note of the Communist Parties' growing influence over the mass of workers, including rank-and-file SocialDemocrats, the Congress called on all sections of the Third International to put an end to survivals of sectarian tendencies as quickly as possible. These tendencies, the Congress resolution stated, were keeping the Communists away from Social-Democratic workers. The Congress recommended that the Communist Parties change their methods of agitation and propaganda, by ``giving them a specific, concrete direction linked with the requirements and day-to-day interests of the masses''.^^**^^In its decisions the Congress charted the ways and means of turning the struggle for a united proletarian front into a struggle for a popular front of all the working people against the capitalist offensive, fascism and the threat of another war. In this mass movement all sections of the Comintern had to ``concentrate their attention on further strengthening their ranks and winning the majority of the working class over to communism".^^***^^ In the developed capitalist countries the proletarian vanguard continued to concentrate on expanding ties with the working class, winning the trust of millions of people and turning the Comintern sections into large Parties supported by the majority of the proletariat.
The struggle of the Communist Parties for influence over the working masses was activated in a situation witnessing the advance of socialism in the USSR and the world economic crisis. These two basic factors, which were revolutionising the working people in the entire capitalist world, were steadily looming larger. Experience was showing many workers the danger of the disunity of their political organisations. This experience was increasing the gravitation towards united action in the international working class. The growth of the revolutionary forces induced the bourgeoisie to look for salvation in fascism, which was an open terrorist dictatorship _-_-_
~^^*^^ Resolutions of the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1935, p. 3.
~^^**^^ Ibid., p. 4.
~^^***^^ Ibid., p. 6.
__PRINTERS_P_305_COMMENT__ 20---2635 305 of the most reactionary elements of financial capital. But the spread of fascism, as was noted in the resolution of the Seventh Congress, was testimony ``not only of the weakness of the working class, that was disorganised as a result of the divisive policy of class co-operation with the bourgeoisie pursued by the Social-Democratic Parties, but also of the weakness of the bourgeoisie itself, which was gripped by fear of the growing unity of the working class, by fear of the revolution, and was unable to maintain its dictatorship by the old methods of bourgeois democracy''.^^*^^The anti-fascist decisions of the Seventh Congress remain valid to this day, when the neo-fascist danger has reappeared in some capitalist countries.
Today, as in the 1930s, the Communists are warning the masses against any underestimation of the fascist threat and reminding them that ``only the united revolutionary struggle of the working class at the head of all working people"^^**^^ will close the road to fascism and the forces of war.
The Seventh Congress of the Communist International was a turning point in the struggle for a united working-class front. The Congress decisions called for ``united action by all sections of the working class, regardless of their affiliation to one organisation or another, before the majority of the working class is united on a general platform of struggle for the overthrow of capitalism and the victory of the proletarian revolution''.^^***^^ In putting this decision into effect the Communist Parties had to ``employ the united front tactics in a new way by reaching agreement on joint action with working people's organisations of different political orientations on the factory, local, regional, national and international levels''.^^****^^
In applying the united front tactics the Communist Parties used as their guideline the instructions of the Seventh Comintern Congress that the pivot and main content of the united working-class front was the defence of the direct economic and political interests of the proletariat and the struggle against fascism. To clear the road to united working-class action, the Communists worked to secure joint action with _-_-_
~^^*^^ Resolutions of the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International, Russ. ed., p. 11.
~^^**^^ Ibid., p. 12.
~^^***^^ Ibid., p. 14.
~^^****^^ Ibid.
306 the Social-Democratic Parties, the reformist trade unions and other organisations of the working people against the class enemies of the proletariat on the basis of short- and longterm agreements. Here the main emphasis was on joint action by the mass workers' organisations in the various localities.Provision was made for diverse ways of securing the united front, depending on the character of the workers' organisations and the specific situation: various joint action by workers' organisations of different orientations on individual demands or on the basis of a common platform; co-ordinated action at individual factories or branches of production; concerted action on the local, regional, national or international level; joint economic or political struggle; self-defence against fascist attack and so on, the establishment of nonpartisan class organs of the united front at factories, among the unemployed, in working-class districts and so forth with the purpose of consolidating the unorganised mass of working people.^^*^^
The Congress called on Communists to show the proletarian masses the treachery of the Right-wing Social-- Democratic leaders, who were sabotaging the united front and disorganising it by their divisive policy. At the same time, the Congress drove home the point that it was essential ``to establish the closest possible co-operation with Left-wing Social-Democratic workers, functionaries and organisations opposed to reformist policy and advocating a united front with the Communist Party".^^**^^ During election campaigns united front tactics envisaged a more energetic convergence of the front organisations. These tactics were founded on the principle that at parliamentary elections the Communists could come forward with a common platform and common anti-fascist front candidates while retaining freedom of political agitation and criticism.^^***^^
The tactics of struggle for a broad anti-fascist popular front uniting the working peasants, the urban petty bourgeoisie and the working masses of oppressed nationalities under working-class leadership were worked out on the basis of a proletarian united front. By putting forward the specific _-_-_
~^^*^^ Resolutions of the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International, Russ. ed., pp. 14--17.
~^^**^^ Ibid., p. 18.
~^^***^^ Ibid., pp. 18--19.
__PRINTERS_P_307_COMMENT__ 20* 307 demands of these segments of the working people, demands that coincided with the basic interests of the proletariat, the Communists strengthened their position with the broad masses, without whose support the struggle against monopoly capital and fascism could not be successful. The Seventh Congress stressed that it was the direct duty of the Communist Parties to carry on with their work of winning the urban petty bourgeoisie, intellectuals and white collar workers, and recommended bringing the middle strata of the population into the struggle against the growing taxes and the rising cost of living, against robbery by the monopolies.^^*^^If during the upsurge of the mass movement, the Congress resolution stated, ``it is found possible and, in the interests of the proletariat, necessary to set up a proletarian united front or an anti-fascist popular front government, which is not yet a government of the proletarian dictatorship but which undertakes determined measures against fascism and reaction, the Communist Parties should press for the creation of such a government''.^^**^^ Insofar as a united front government would act resolutely against the financial magnates and fascism and would not restrict the actions of the Communist Party and the struggle of the working class, the Communists, the resolution declared, would give their utmost support to such a government and, given favourable conditions, might even accept posts in it.^^***^^
The united working-class front tactics, like the anti-fascist popular front tactics, were successfully pursued by fraternal Parties during the pre-war years in a number of European countries, where by vigorous joint action of the Left forces, primarily of the united working class, fascism was repulsed. Striking testimony of the success of these tactics were the events of February 1934 in France, when the French Communist Party united workers of different political orientation and blocked the road to fascism in the country. The most forceful demonstration of the unity of the working class and all democratic strata of the people in a dedicated, heroic struggle against international fascist reaction was the civil war in Spain (1936--1939). It was a magnificent example of proletarian internationalism---with arms in hand the finest sons of the world working class fought for the freedom of _-_-_
~^^*^^ Resolutions of the Seventh World Congress..., p. 19.
~^^**^^ Ibid., p. 20.
~^^***^^ Ibid.
308 Republican Spain against the Italian and German fascist intervention. It was only the backing of the British and French imperialists and of the US monopolies that helped Hitler, Mussolini and their puppet Franco to drown Spanish freedom in blood. The Munich policy of the imperialist governments of the USA, Britain and France finally untied the hands of the fascist aggressors, enabling them to plunge mankind into the abyss of a world war.During the Second World War, which after the German invasion of the Soviet Union acquired the character of an anti-fascist war of liberation for the salvation of the whole of mankind from fascist barbarity, the united workers' and popular front tactics were employed by the Communists to set up a broad Resistance movement in countries occupied by the nazis. There was, perhaps, no corner in Europe where the anti-fascist workers, led by Communists operating deep underground, did not rally round their fighting nucleus the detachments of People's Avengers who struck telling blows at the occupation forces.
After the Soviet Army had inflicted crushing defeats on the nazi invaders, driven them out of the Soviet Union and begun to liberate other countries, the Resistance detachments started more active operations behind the enemy's lines and thereby made a large contribution towards the liberation of France, Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, Bulgaria, Rumania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Scandinavian and other countries. Communists, Socialists, peasant partisans and volunteers from patriotic sections of the petty and middle bourgeoisie formed a united front in the sacred struggle for the independence of their homeland and the total destruction of the fascist enslavers. This was a lofty demonstration of solidarity in the common struggle to save culture and civilisation. The European working class and its foremost fighters, the Communists, were the soul of this struggle.
Far-reaching socio-political changes took place in many European countries as a result of the Soviet people's victory over the nazi aggressors and as a result of the open actions of the working class led by its Communist Parties. In some countries (France, Italy) Communists won millions of votes and entered the governments that were formed during the initial post-war years. Particularly momentous changes took place in East and Southeast Europe, where the mass actions against the reactionary ruling classes evolved into people's 309 liberation revolutions. Similar social upheavals occurred in a number of Asian countries. In these countries power was taken over by the working class, which came forward in a close political bloc with broad sections of the peasants, urban petty and middle bourgeoisie and progressive intellectuals.
The Communist and Workers' Parties were the core of this bloc, which became the political foundation of the new state power. They set up genuinely people's governments, which were, in effect, a new form of the proletarian dictatorship.
The character and substance of the fundamental changes that were brought about by the proletariat under the leadership of the Marxist-Leninist Parties predetermined the emergence of the world socialist system. This was the most significant result of the class struggle of the world proletariat. It ushered in a turning point of the world proletariat's class struggle that had no parallel in world history since the Great October Socialist Revolution. Henceforth the entire course of world history and the prospects of the international working-class movement became largely dependent on the successful development of the world socialist system.
__*_*_*__A major landmark in the further elaboration of the theory and tactics of the international working-class movement was the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU. The point of departure in its decisions was that fundamental changes strengthening the position of the world socialist system had taken place in international development. It put on record that international proletarian unity had acquired paramount importance from the standpoint of the further advance of the proletarian class struggle. The need for nation-wide movements to avert the threat of another world war likewise demanded the strengthening of working-class unity and the consolidation of the proletariat's links with the different contingents of the common democratic front. ``In the interests of lasting peace,'' states the resolution of the Twentieth CPSU Congress, ``it is extremely important that all the forces opposing war should act in a united front----Here it is of tremendous significance to close the split in the working-class movement and establish business-like relations between the Communist and Socialist parties and also other parties which 310 really desire to uphold peace, fight imperialist oppression, safeguard the national interests of their peoples and defend democracy and independence.''^^*^^
The theoretical conclusion drawn by the Congress that with the appearance of the mighty peace-loving socialist camp wars were no longer fatally inevitable was of great practical significance to the post-war working-class movement. The Congress outlined new prospects for the struggle of the working class of the capitalist countries for the socialist reorganisation of society. The fundamental changes in favour of socialism that had taken place in the world and the mounting attractive force of socialist ideals had created conditions for the triumph of socialism on a world scale. The prospects had improved for peaceful, i.e., non-violent, socialist revolutions. ``Under these conditions,'' the Twentieth Congress pointed out, ``by rallying the working peasants, broad sections of intellectuals and all patriotic forces round itself, the working class ... has the possibility of defeating the reactionary, anti-popular forces, win a stable majority in parliament and turn it from an organ of bourgeois democracy into a genuine vehicle of the will of the people.''^^**^^
The increased real possibilities for winning power peacefully, through parliament, without bloodshed, are mirrored in the programme documents of the Communist Parties of a number of developed capitalist countries, for instance, the programme of the Communist Party of Great Britain (The British Road to Socialism). However, the CPSU and many fraternal Parties are aware that an armed struggle for the conquest of power by the proletariat is not to be ruled out. The very concept of a peaceful transfer of power is correctly interpreted by the Marxist-Leninist Parties as implying that no concessions are to be made to reformist illusions about a ``peaceful evolution of capitalism into socialism" without an acute class struggle. The Communists of all countries have emphasised that this struggle is inevitable in a peaceful revolution as well. What distinguishes it from the nonpeaceful conquest of power is that in one case the working class will be forced to use weapons against the exploiters, while in the second case it may do without weapons, without bloodshed.
_-_-_~^^*^^ The CPSU in Resolutions. .., Part IV, Russ. ed., p. 127.
~^^**^^ Ibid., p. 131.
311The consolidation of the world socialist system has had an extremely beneficial effect on the world revolutionary process. ``The Soviet Union's successful advance along the road to communism, the achievements of all the other socialist countries and the consistent struggle for peace,'' the TwentyFirst CPSU Congress stressed, ``are opening up favourable prospects for the attainment of working-class united action on the international and the national level.''^^*^^ The resolution adopted by the Congress pointed out that in the course of the class struggle the broad mass of Social-Democratic workers and their organisations in the capitalist countries would become increasingly aware of the new opportunities that the achievements of socialism were opening for the international working class. This was making it possible to hope that the various contingents of the working class and broad democratic strata would unite with the purpose of closing the door to neo-fascism and war.^^**^^
Drawn up with a considerable contribution from the CPSU, the documents of the November 1957 Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties of Socialist Countries noted that imperialism had lost its former domination over a large part of mankind, and in the imperialist countries themselves working-class opposition to the anti-popular policies of the monopolies was growing increasingly more determined.
Reiterating the unity of views of the Marxist-Leninist .Parties on fundamental questions of the socialist revolution, the Meeting specified a series of common laws governing the revolution and the building of the new social system. At the same time, the Meeting underscored the fact that these laws manifest themselves everywhere amidst a great diversity of historically-shaped features and national traditions that have to be taken into account. Marxism-Leninism, it is stated in the Meeting's Declaration, does not allow for the mechanical imitation of the policy and tactics of the Communist Parties of other countries. ``Disregard of national peculiarities by the proletarian Party inevitably leads to its divorce from reality, from the masses, and is bound to prejudice the cause of socialism, and, conversely, exaggeration of the role of these peculiarities, or departure, under the _-_-_
~^^*^^ The CPSU in Resolutions..., Part IV, Russ. ed., p. 402.
~^^**^^ Ibid.
312 pretext of national peculiarities, from the universal MarxistLeninist truth on the socialist revolution and socialist construction, is just as harmful to the socialist cause.''^^*^^At the Meeting the task was set of resolutely surmounting revisionism and dogmatism in the Communist and Workers' Parties. It was noted that dogmatism and sectarianism were slowing down the development of revolutionary theory and its creative application under the changing conditions, and leading to the isolation of the Party from the masses. Contemporary Right-wing opportunism and revisionism, as manifestations of bourgeois ideology, were paralysing the class struggle of the proletariat and, in effect, calling for the preservation of capitalism. In waging a determined ideological struggle against Right and ``Left'' opportunism, each Communist Party has to decide for itself which is most dangerous to it at the given time.
At the Meeting the fraternal Parties adopted a Peace Manifesto addressed to the workers and peasants of all countries, to all people of good will. ``The peace forces,'' states the Manifesto, ``are legion. They can prevent war and safeguard peace. However, we, the Communists, believe that it is our duty to warn all the peoples of the world that the danger of a monstrous and annihilating war has not passed.''^^**^^ Exposing the imperialist warmongers, the Meeting addressed the following ardent appeal to the peoples of the world: ``By a common effort let us get rid of the burden of armaments which oppresses the peoples. Let us rid the world of the danger of war, death and annihilation''.^^***^^ A consistent struggle to avert the threat of a thermonuclear war of annihilation has become one of the key tasks of the international working class and its Communist Parties.
The next programme document of the international working class' militant vanguard was the Statement of the Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties held in Moscow in November 1960. This Meeting noted that the main direction of society's historical development in the present epoch was determined by the world socialist system, by the forces fighting against imperialism and for the socialist reconstruction of the world. The contradictions of imperialism had _-_-_
~^^*^^ The Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, p. 15.
~^^**^^ Ibid., p. 28.
~^^***^^ Ibid., p. 31.
313 accelerated the evolution of monopoly capitalism into statemonopoly capitalism. Monopoly capital had immeasurably stepped up the exploitation of the working class in new forms, chiefly by intensifying labour. Under capitalism, automation and ``rationalisation'' were bringing further suffering to the working people.An analysis of the development of modern capitalist society shows that the conflict between the productive forces and the relations of production has never before been so deepgoing. Obstructing the use of scientific and technological achievements in the interests of social progress, capitalism is turning the discoveries made by human genius into fearful means of mass annihilation. But the attempts to bolster up the rotten foundations of the old system of militarism are tying the knot of insoluble contradictions still more tightly. The big monopolies are mounting an offensive all along the line against the interests not only of the working class but of all other strata of the people. This is widening the gulf between the handful of monopolists and all sections of the people. The monopolies are seeking to destroy the people's democratic rights or curtail them as far as possible. This is intensifying the process of fascisation in new forms. Dictatorial methods of administration are being combined with the fiction of parliamentarianism.
The proletariat is not the only class interested in uprooting monopoly capitalist rule. The peasants, the intellectuals and the petty and middle bourgeoisie are joining in the struggle of the working class. The Communists believe that it is quite possible to achieve the unity of all these social strata. ``The main blow in present conditions,'' the Meeting's Statement points out, ``is directed with growing force at the capitalist monopolies, which are chiefly responsible for the arms race and which constitute the bulwark of reaction and aggression, at the whole system of state-monopoly capitalism, which defends their interests.''^^*^^ The popular movement, which is headed by the proletariat, is embodied by the struggle for peace, national independence, the protection and extension of democracy, nationalisation of the key branches of the economy and democratisation of their management, implementation of radical agrarian reforms, improvement of the living conditions of the working people, and protection _-_-_
~^^*^^ The Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, pp. 67--68.
314 of the interests of the peasantry and the petty and middle urban bourgeoisie against the tyranny of the monopolies.^^*^^It takes more than these measures to abolish exploitation of man by man. But they undermine the rule of the monopolies, enhance the prestige and political authority of the working class and isolate the most reactionary forces. ``As they participate in the fight for democratic reforms, large sections of the population come to realise the necessity of unity of action with the working class and become more active politically. It is the prime duty of the working class and its Communist vanguard to head the economic and political struggle of the masses for democratic reforms, for the overthrow of the power of the monopolies, and assure its success.''^^**^^
As distinct from the Right opportunists, who regard reforms within the framework of the capitalist system as the end purpose of the working-class movement, the Communists regard the struggle for democracy as part of the struggle for socialism. In the course of this struggle the people begin to see the need for fundamental social reforms that go beyond the limits of the old system. While fighting for democracy, Marxists-Leninists continue to explain to the people the fundamental advantages of socialism over capitalism. They win increasing influence in trade unions, co-operatives, among the peasants, young people and women, in sports organisations and among the unorganised sections of the population. ``Lenin's great behest---to go deeper into the masses, to work wherever there are masses, to strengthen the ties with the masses in order to lead them---must become a major task for every Communist Party.''^^***^^
__*_*_*__In the new Programme of the CPSU, adopted by the Twenty-Second Party Congress, we find a further creative enlargement on Lenin's teaching that the working class is the foremost social force of modern times. It gives an extended characteristic of the position and role of the proletariat of _-_-_
~^^*^^ The Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, p. 69.
~^^**^^ Ibid.
~^^***^^ Ibid., p. 70.
315 the bourgeois countries in the new epoch started by the Great October Revolution---the epoch of the downfall of capitalism and the consolidation of communism. It states that having triumphed in the Soviet Union and the People's Democracies, socialism has become ``the banner of the revolutionary movement of the working class throughout the world''.^^*^^The definition given in the Programme of the main content of the modern epoch is supplemented with the proposition that the working class and its chief creation, the world socialist system, stand in the centre of this epoch. The paramount duty of all Marxist-Leninist Parties is to secure the utmost strengthening of the fraternal relations between the peoples of the socialist countries and the world proletariat. As for the CPSU, it ``regards communist construction in the USSR as the Soviet people's great internationalist task, in keeping with the interests of the world socialist system as a whole and with the interests of the international proletariat and all mankind''.^^**^^
Developments over the past few decades and the actual facts of modern reality provide fresh testimony in support of the truth of Marxism that the proletariat, the most consistently revolutionary class, is the principal driving force of the revolutionary reorganisation of the world. ``In fulfilling its historic mission as the revolutionary remaker of the old society and creator of a new system, the working class becomes the exponent not only of its own class interests but of the interests of all working people. It is the natural leader of all the forces fighting against capitalism.''^^***^^
Modern state-monopoly capitalism is profoundly analysed in the Programme of the CPSU, which shows that its class interests are incompatible with the interests not only of the working class but of all other classes and social forces of the present-day capitalist world. Instead of smoothing class contradictions, as the revisionists claim, state-monopoly capitalism widens the gulf between labour and capital, between the majority of the nation and the monopolies. The attempts at state regulation of the capitalist economy not only fail to remove competition and anarchy of production but _-_-_
~^^*^^ The Road to Communism, p. 447.
~^^**^^ Ibid., p. 450.
~^^***^^ Ibid., p. 453.
316 still further aggravate the contradictions in the imperialist countries. State-monopoly capitalism creates a single mechanism whose purpose is to suppress the working-class movement and the national liberation struggle, save the bourgeois system and launch aggressive wars. At the same time, from the standpoint of the material prerequisites of socialism, the state-monopoly system creates favourable conditions for the coming proletarian revolution.^^*^^ The Programme contains the important conclusion that under monopoly capitalist rule technological progress prejudices the working class, that in the capitalist world the position of the working class is on the whole deteriorating. Wages are lagging behind the material and cultural requirements of the worker and his family, requirements that grow with the development of society. Even the relatively high standard of living in a small group of developed capitalist countries derives from the exploitation of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America, from nonequivalent exchange, discrimination against women, and the ruthless oppression of the Negro population and of imported labour. The bourgeois myth of ``total employment" has proved to be a sinister mockery---the working class lives in the shadow of mass unemployment and fear of the morrow.The economic position of the workers in developed capitalist countries is characterised as follows in the Programme of the CPSU: ``Fear of revolution, the successes of the socialist countries, and the pressure of the working-class movement compel the bourgeoisie to make partial concessions with respect to wages, labour conditions and social security. But more often than not mounting prices and inflation reduce these concessions to nought.... In spite of some successes in the economic struggle, the condition of the working class in the capitalist world is, on the whole, deteriorating.''^^**^^
Dealing with the present-day working-class movement, the Programme notes that the victorious new social system is revolutionising the minds of the working people in the capitalist world and facilitating their struggle against imperialism. The proletariat has accumulated vast political experience; it possesses tremendous organised power and is animated by a militant spirit. The huge trade union _-_-_
~^^*^^ The Road to Communism, p. 471.
~^^**^^ Ibid., pp. 474--75.
317 movement is playing an increasingly important role. The capitalist countries are being continuously shaken by class battles, which create a direct threat to bourgeois rule. In addition to methods of suppression, the finance oligarchy has recourse to deceit. In an effort to corrupt the workers' organisations and split the trade union movement it is widening the top echelon of the working-class aristocracy, bribing the Right-wing leaders of the trade unions, co-operatives and other workers' organisations chiefly by giving them lucrative positions in industry and the government apparatus. At the same time, a violent campaign is sustained against the Communist Parties, anti-worker laws are promulgated, blacklists are compiled and strikes are suppressed by military force.^^*^^But all these methods used by the imperialist bourgeoisie to preserve its dictatorship and all the means employed by it to hide the ulcers and vices of the capitalist system cannot reconcile the contradictions between labour and capital. The working-class movement is shifting massively to the Left even in countries where reformism still retains strong positions. In the light of this more favourable situation for the development of the working-class movement, the Twenty-Second Congress of the CPSU drew the conclusion that even before the overthrow of capitalism the proletariat of many countries can force the bourgeoisie to launch reforms of vital significance to the working-class struggle for the victory of the socialist revolution. ``By uniting the working people, the masses, the working class can beat back the offensive of fascist reaction and bring about the implementation of a national programme for peace, national independence, democratic rights and a certain improvement of the living conditions of the people.''^^**^^
The capitalist monopolies, it is stressed in the Programme of the CPSU, are the chief enemy of the working class, which directs its struggle principally against them. But all the main strata of the nation are vitally interested in abolishing monopoly rule. There is, therefore, a solid foundation for forming a national anti-monopoly front. By pressing for broad nationalisation on terms most advantageous to the people, supporting the demand of the peasants for the transfer of the land to those who till it, and fighting alongside _-_-_
~^^*^^ The Road to Communism, p. 481.
~^^**^^ Ibid., pp. 482--83.
318 other strata of society for broad democracy, the proletariat strengthens its alliance with all working people.Lenin's teaching that there is an indivisible link between the socialist and democratic tasks of the working class is fully mirrored in the Programme of the CPSU, which states: ``General democratic struggles against the monopolies do not delay the socialist revolution but bring it nearer. The struggle for democracy is a component of the struggle for socialism.... In the course of this struggle, Right socialist, reformist illusions are dispelled and a political army of the socialist revolution is brought into being.''^^*^^
In the Programme it is underscored that in our day, too, the revolution is accomplished by the proletariat and other working strata of the given country. It cannot be imposed from without. However, in line with their internationalist duty, the working class of the USSR and other socialist countries is prepared to ``forestall or firmly repel imperialist interference in the affairs of the people of any country risen in revolt and thereby prevent imperialist export of counterrevolution''.^^**^^
The Marxist-Leninist thesis that war is not necessary for the emergence of a direct revolutionary situation, that such a situation can take shape in time of peace, is enlarged on in the Programme. A feature distinguishing the present-day revolutionary movement of the working class is that it is developing under conditions of peaceful coexistence of two opposing systems. ``The great objectives of the working class can be realised without world war. Today the conditions for this are more favourable than ever.''^^***^^
The problem of the ways and means of accomplishing the proletarian socialist revolution is dealt with comprehensively in the Programme. Enlarging on the theoretical propositions put forward on this problem by the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU and by the 1957 and 1960 International Meetings of Communist and Workers' Parties, the Twenty-Second Party Congress emphasised in the Programme adopted by it that the peaceful way of accomplishing the revolution presupposes the existence of a united working-class ana popular front. With the support of the majority of the nation, the working class can win a firm majority in parliament _-_-_
~^^*^^ The Road to Communism, p. 484.
~^^**^^ Ibid.
~^^***^^ Ibid., p. 485.
319 and turn it into an organ expressing the will of the working people. At the same time, as the Programme points out, the working class must proceed with a massive, extraparliamentary struggle to consolidate and extend revolutionary reforms. As in preceding Party documents, in the Programme of the CPSU there is the reminder that the second possibility ---the non-peaceful transition to socialism---has to be borne in mind. This possibility turns into reality when the exploiting classes resort to violence against the people. The possibility of a peaceful or non-peaceful way of transition to socialism, it is explained in the Programme, is determined by the historical conditions obtaining in each given country.The development of Leninist propositions about the working class in the capitalist countries is reflected also in the decisions of the Twenty-Third Congress of the CPSU. Noting that the alignment of forces in the world has been changing during the past few years in favour of socialism and the working-class and national liberation movements, the Congress pointed out that the current situation is, moreover, characterised by an intensification of imperialist aggression and political reaction. The deepening of the general crisis of imperialism is accompanied by imperialist military gambles and provocations, by attempts of the imperialists to nd a way out in military conspiracies and armed interventions. This is demanding greater vigilance and unity on the part of the anti-war, anti-imperialist forces, primarily of all the contingents of the international working-class movement.
On the basis of its analysis of the state and real prospects of the working-class movement in capitalist countries, the Twenty-Third Congress noted that at present the proletariat is waging major class battles against the monopolies. In some countries it has won new positions allowing for a further onslaught on the exploiters. Prospects for united action by various contingents of the working-class movement have taken shape in a number of countries. Increasing numbers of people from all social strata are rallying round the working class and actively supporting its struggle against the monopolies. Expressing its unswerving fidelity to the Leninist principles of proletarian internationalism, the Twenty-Third Congress put on record that it ``considers it necessary to continue to extend and strengthen the bonds of comradeship and fraternity and revolutionary solidarity of the Soviet people and Soviet Communists with the working class and 320 all other working people of the capitalist countries and with their democratic organisations''.^^*^^
At its Twenty-Third Congress the CPSU recognised the need for continuing the practice of holding multilateral and bilateral meetings of fraternal Parties and promoting systematic exchanges of views and comradely discussions of pressing tasks. The CPSU condemns all manifestations of hegemonism in the communist movement. It stands for the genuine equality of all brother Parties and for fraternal relations between them. These relations presuppose an uncompromising struggle by Marxists-Leninists against Right and ``Left'' revisionism. ``Deviations to the `Left' or Right of the Marxist-Leninist line,'' the Twenty-Third Congress declared, ``are doubly dangerous when associated with nationalism and hegemonistic ambitions.''^^**^^
To work for the growth and solidarity of the forces of the world working-class movement means, first and foremost, to bend every effort to help strengthen the positions of international communism, which today comes forward as the most influential political force of modern times, and consolidate the unity of the great army of Communists of the world in the struggle against the common enemy, against imperialism.
At its plenary meeting in June 1967 the CC CPSU underscored the enormous significance of the communist movement's ideological fidelity to Marxism-Leninism and the traditions of the October Revolution. ``The experience of the past fifty years has demonstrated that the strength of the communist movement rests on its loyalty to MarxismLeninism. There can be no communist movement outside the orbit of scientific communism. Elaborating its strategy and tactics, the communist vanguard of the working class of the socialist countries, of the advanced capitalist countries and of the newly-free states develops and enriches the heritage of the October Revolution.''^^***^^
__*_*_*__The Communist Party of the Soviet Union continues to devote unflagging attention to the international communist and working-class movement. The plenary meeting of the _-_-_
~^^*^^ 23rd Congress of the CPSU, p. 282.
~^^**^^ Ibid., p. 285.
~^^***^^ 50th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, p. 59.
__PRINTERS_P_321_COMMENT__ 21---2635 321 CC~CPSU, held in April 1968, unconditionally endorsed the line and work of the Political Bureau of the CC in international policy and in the world communist movement. The very important point made by Lenin that socialist construction was powerfully influencing the development of the world revolutionary process was reiterated by the CC CPSU at its plenary meeting in July 1968. It noted that ``successful communist construction in our country conforms to the interests of the fraternal socialist countries and all revolutionary forces and furthers the struggle against international imperialism, for peace, national independence, democracy and socialism''.The CPSU's work in elaborating the Leninist theory and tactics of the international communist and working-class movement was strikingly manifested in connection with the preparations for and during the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties. The work of Soviet Communists on the Preparatory Committee and of the Soviet delegation at the Meeting itself, particularly the report delivered by L. I. Brezhnev, General Secretary of the CC CPSU, contributed greatly towards the further enlargement of the strategy and tactics of the international communist and working-class movement.
United action of the international working class was one of the central issues at the Meeting. Under present-day conditions the practical implementation of the principles of proletarian internationalism and unity of views and action of the working class on the basic problems of the class struggle are a decisive guarantee of victory in this struggle. Proletarian unity not only on the national but also the international level is of the utmost importance. Lenin pointed out that ``the proletariat cannot pursue its struggle for socialism and defend its everyday economic interests without the closest and fullest alliance of the workers of all nations in all working-class organisations without exception''.^^*^^
In line with Lenin's injunctions, the CPSU actively presses for the unity of the international working-class and communist movement on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism. Soviet Communists and all Soviet people clearly realise that the further development of the international working-class and communist movement _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 245.
322 and, in this connection, closer co-operation between Communist and Socialist Parties, the trade unions and other working-class organisations are the fundamental means for hastening the triumph of the socialist revolution throughout the world. The working masses, L. I. Brezhnev said at the Twenty-Third Congress, ``are becoming increasingly convinced from their own experience that nothing but concerted efforts will yield tangible results in the struggle against monopoly capital''.^^*^^Unity is one of the most pressing problems in the modern working-class movement. It should be borne in mind that the workers of different countries (advanced and backward) and the different strata of workers in individual countries live under various economic and political conditions and are, therefore, dissimilarly influenced by bourgeois and reformist ideology. For that reason the level of their revolutionary spirit and organisation and the closeness of their contact with the other strata of working people may differ vastly. Generally speaking, two trends continue to exist in the workingclass movement in all the capitalist countries: these are the revolutionary and the opportunist trend. The Communist Parties are making every effort to unite all working-class organisations on the most urgent problems, viz., peace, promotion of democracy, basic economic demands. These efforts are obstructed by the modern reformists, who, having closed ranks with imperialist reaction, are consistently attacking the working class, negating its leading role in the present-day revolutionary process and seeking to divide and thereby weaken it. This is the political essence of the Right and ``Left'' opportunist concepts. It is due to reformism that the working class is disunited and cannot give full play to its enormous revolutionary potentialities.
The Right-wing leaders of the Socialist Parties are helping the ruling classes to manoeuvre in a situation witnessing an intensification of the class struggle. During the past few years the capitalists have been more and more frequently forced to follow the line of ``concessions of the unessential, while retaining the essential'',^^**^^ in addition to employing their usual methods of suppressing the working-class movement. The reformists are doing everything in their power to sustain the _-_-_
~^^*^^ 23rd Congress of the CPSU, p. 27.
~^^**^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 64.
__PRINTERS_P_323_COMMENT__ 21* 323 illusion, created in this manner, that the working class can gradually attain its end goals by reaching agreement with the bourgeoisie. ``The Communist Parties,'' L. I. Brezhnev said, ``justly believe that the interests of their own cohesion, the interests of the whole anti-imperialist movement insistently demand an intensification of the struggle against revisionism and both Right and `Left' opportunism. A principled stand on this issue has always been a most important condition for strengthening a Party's political positions and has always mobilised and enhanced the activity of Communists in the class struggle.''^^*^^As distinct from the Right and ``Left'' opportunists, the Communist Parties do not draw a dividing line between the struggle for socialism and the struggle for economic and social demands, and for advanced democracy. Steadfastly employing the Leninist tactics of struggle for the masses, the Communists continue their efforts to establish contact with other working-class parties and organisations. Differentiation, which is also mirrored among the leadership, the Main Document adopted by the Meeting points out, is taking place in the Social-Democratic Parties. Some of the leaders of these parties have sided with monopoly capital. Others are inclined to reckon with the economic and social demands of the working people and with their stand on the question of peace and social progress.
Communists therefore advocate co-operation with Social-Democrats in order ``to establish an advanced democratic system today and build a socialist society in the future''. However, an indispensable condition for such co-operation is the demand that the Social-Democratic Parties should resolutely ``break with the policy of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie and ... pursue a policy of effective struggle for peace, democracy and socialism".^^**^^ At present when we speak of the possibility of entering into contact with rankand-file Social-Democrats we have to discount their leaders. As the Eleventh Congress of the Socialist International (1969) showed, anti-communism remains the principal feature of the policies pursued by the leaders of that International. ``Anti-communism,'' L. I. Brezhnev pointed out, ``makes _-_-_
~^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 156.
~^^**^^ Ibid., pp. 24--25.
324 Right-wing Social-Democracy a captive of the imperialist bourgeoisie also in matters of international policy. In the past 20 years, Social-Democratic leaders in a number of countries laid the main accent in foreign affairs on strengthening 'Atlantic solidarity', that is, strengthening the politicomilitary alliance of the West European countries with the United States in the context of the North Atlantic Treaty.''^^*^^International unity of the working class is now becoming increasingly more urgent. The present epoch is characterised not only by the struggle between socialism and capitalism but by increasing internationalisation of the productive forces, production, exchange, and cultural, scientific and other relations. Under these conditions the class struggle in the capitalist world is steadily becoming more and more international because every national contingent of the working class comes into collision not only with its own bourgeoisie but also with the combined forces of the bourgeoisie of all countries. For that reason in their struggle against imperialism, the proletariat and the oppressed peoples rely on the assistance and support of the proletarians and working masses of other countries.
The international cohesion of the proletariat is determined, furthermore, by the community of their Marxist-Leninist views and the complete concurrence of their end class goals. These goals can be attained by charting a common strategy, by steadily reinforcing international proletarian solidarity and by concerted action against imperialism on an international scale.
United action by Communist and Workers' Parties is the prime condition for creating a world-wide anti-imperialist front of the proletariat and all other working people in the struggle to develop democracy, safeguard peace and achieve socialism. In the Main Document adopted by the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties it is stated that ``the diverse conditions in which the Communist Parties operate, the different approaches to practical tasks and even differences on certain questions must not hinder concerted international action by fraternal Parties, particularly on the basic problems of the anti-imperialist struggle.... _-_-_
~^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1909, pp. 164--65.
325 The Communist and Workers' Parties, regardless of some difference of opinion, reaffirm their determination to present a united front in the struggle against imperialism''.^^*^^The general political platform charted at the Meeting provides a solid foundation for strengthening united action by the proletariat and all other working people of the world against imperialism. El Siglo, organ of the Chilean Communists, underscored that the militant slogan ``Workers of all countries, unite!" had acquired greater significance after the Meeting in Moscow. The bourgeois press had to admit that there were no grounds for its hope for a split and weakening of the communist and working-class movement. The Meeting demonstrated the firm unity of its participants, a unity which the capitalist world has to reckon with more than ever before. The British bourgeois newspaper Observer wrote: ``In short, the agreed public stance of the 75 Parties is far from limp----As far as that goes, it was not unfair to claim that the conference demonstrated an imperfect but surprising unity.''^^**^^
The anti-communist ideologists and the pseudo-- revolutionary theoreticians, who have slid into Left sectarianism and unconcealed nationalism, would like to tear the international working-class movement away from the socialist system. In an effort to weaken and undermine the unity of the international communist movement, they counterpose the national interests of the working-class parties to their internationalist duty. The delegates to the International Meeting gave a determined rebuff to these attempts.
The Leninist principles of internationalism underlie all the activities of the Communist Parties. At the Meeting Wladislaw Gomulka said: ``We must oppose the global strategy of imperialism with a united internationalist front of the world communist and working-class movement.... That is a categorical political imperative of our time. For this reason the attitude to the principles of internationalism is at present the basic criterion of the political line of every Communist Party and the international working-class movement.''^^***^^
_-_-_~^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties..., pp. 37--38.
~^^**^^ The Observer, June 22, 1969, p. 8.
~^^***^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 102.
326In its decision on the results of the Meeting, the June 1969 plenary meeting of the CC CPSU made the point that the CPSU had to persevere in its efforts to unite the international communist movement on the principled foundation of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism and uncompromisingly combat Right and ``Left'' revisionism and nationalism. This is the CPSU's general strategic line in the international communist and. working-class movement.
On the basis of its vast practical experience and its theoretical study of the entire course of the current development of the world revolutionary process, the CPSU enlarges on and enriches the Leninist principles underlying the strategy and tactics of the international communist movement and contributes to the further elaboration of the theory and practice of the international working-class movement.
[327] __ALPHA_LVL1__ THE CPSU'S CONTRIBUTIONM. I. Kulichenko
__NOTE__ Author(s) is (are) above LVL in original.One of the greatest services rendered by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is its development of the MarxistLeninist teaching of the ways and forms of solving the national problem.
Having given rise to the national question, capitalism is unable to resolve it because as long as private ownership exists any democratic demand, including the national question, can be implemented, as Lenin said, ``as an exception, and even then in an incomplete and distorted form''.^^*^^ Only socialism proved to be able to solve the national question.
``The solidarity of more than a hundred socialist nations and nationalities, their swift economic and cultural growth, and the consolidation of an integral proletarian ideology--- such are the achievements of socialism in resolving the agelong national problem, which had baffled all preceding social systems.''^^**^^
Great Lenin substantiated the solution of the national problem in both theory and practice, while for the peoples of the whole world the first country of triumphant socialism--- the Soviet multi-national state---was the proving ground for this solution.
Let us examine the contribution which the CPSU, guided by Lenin's behests, made to the theory and practice of solving the national question and the influence which this contribution continues to exert since the time of the October _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 408.
~^^**^^ Centenary of the Birth of V. I. Lenin, Theses of the CC CPSU, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1969, p. 32.
328 Revolution on the destinies of the peoples of the whole world and of the national liberation movement. __*_*_*__True to Lenin's behests, the CPSU set itself the task of ensuring the fraternal co-operation and mutual assistance of the peoples of the USSR in -the building of the new society. It held that its internationalist duty was to assist the oppressed peoples in their struggle for social and national emancipation.
The October Revolution reaffirmed the correctness of the Party's programme and policy in the national question, including its main slogan on the right of nations to selfdetermination.
On the eve of the fourth anniversary of the Great October Revolution Lenin wrote that the Party was proud of the happiness that had fallen to its lot of beginning the construction of the world's first workers' and peasants' state and thereby ushering in a new epoch of world history. The key aspect of this construction was, as Lenin put it, that ``we have granted all the non-Russian nationalities their own republics or autonomous regions''.^^*^^ National state development, as he foretold before the October Revolution, proceeded in the USSR in the Marxist spirit of consistent internationalism and unity of the working people of all nations.
The fundamental change that took place in the content of national relations and the establishment of national statehood by practically all the peoples of the Soviet Union confronted the Party with the problem of finding the most expedient form of state union of peoples. This form was the Soviet socialist federation. Federation was formally adopted as the foundation of national-state development by the Third All-Russia Congress of Soviets, which on January 12, 1918 approved the Declaration of Rights of the Working and Exploited People, which was moved by Lenin. In the Declaration it is stated that ``the Russian Soviet Republic is established on the principle of a free union of free nations, as a federation of Soviet national republics''.^^**^^ As Lenin put _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 53.
~^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 26, p. 423.
329 it, the new state organisation ``is not an invention or a Party trick, but is the result of the development of life itself''.^^*^^ At the same time he stressed that ``we do not rule by dividing, as ancient Rome's harsh maxim required, but by uniting all the working people with the unbreakable bonds of living interests and a sense of class''.^^**^^Inasmuch as the national statehood of the peoples of the USSR took the form of sovereign republics and various autonomous national state units, federation likewise acquired various forms. On the one hand, in the course of a number of years there took shape a treaty federation of sovereign Soviet republics and, on the other hand, the RSFSR itself was built up on the basis of autonomy. Acting on the experience of uniting a number of non-Russian Soviet republics round Soviet Russia, the Eighth Party Congress recorded in the Programme adopted on a motion from Lenin that ``the Party puts forward the federative unification of states organised on the Soviet principle as one of the forms of transition to complete unity''.^^***^^ On the basis of Lenin's analysis of the development of the forms of a federative union of peoples, the Tenth Party Congress noted that two basic types of Soviet federation were adopted in the USSR: (a) treaty federation of sovereign Soviet republics, and (b) federation founded on autonomy.
In the theses on the national and colonial questions submitted to the Second Comintern Congress Lenin drew two important conclusions from the experience of establishing a Soviet socialist federation. The first was the need to ``strive for ever closer federal unity''.^^****^^ The Party gave effect to Lenin's plan of forming the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the basis of this conclusion. The second conclusion was addressed chiefly to the Communist Parties of other countries and was formulated as a task of the Comintern. This task was ``to further develop and also to study and test by experience these new federations, which are arising on the basis of the Soviet system and the Soviet movement''.^^*****^^
The Twelfth Party Congress, held in April 1923, summed up the accumulated experience and on that basis emphasised _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 479.
~^^**^^ Ibid., p. 480.
~^^***^^ The CPSU in Resolutions..., Russ. ed., Part I, p. 417.
~^^****^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 147.
~^^*****^^ Ibid.
330 that life had borne out the correctness of all of the Party's decisions on the national question. ``The purport of these decisions,'' it is stated in the resolution passed by the Congress, ``is (a) emphatically to reject all forms of compulsion with regard to nationalities; (b) recognise the equality and sovereignty of the peoples in deciding their own affairs; (c) recognise that lasting unity of the peoples may be secured only on the principles of co-operation and free will; (d) proclaim the truth that such unity can only be achieved by overthrowing capitalist rule.''^^*^^The experience of solving the national question in the USSR brought to light the law governing the development of the basic national and international processes, the essence of which boils down to the manifestation of two trends: the trend towards the full utilisation of the freedom of development of nations and nationalities and achieving florescence, and the trend towards union, reciprocal influence and mutual enrichment in economic and cultural development and in the promotion of national statehood. The double formula of florescence through union and union through florescence best of all illustrates the unity of the national and the international in the development of the Soviet peoples.
Full-scale communist construction is a new stage in the development of the national relations of the peoples of the USSR, a stage characterised by the further convergence of nations. The Programme of the CPSU records the Party's immediate tasks in the national question as follows: ``To continue the all-round economic and cultural development of all the Soviet nations, ensuring their increasingly close fraternal co-operation, mutual aid, unity and affinity in all spheres of life, thus achieving the utmost strengthening of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; to make full use of, and advance the forms of, national statehood of the peoples of the USSR''.^^**^^ Further, in the CPSU Programme it is stated that all questions of national relations that arise in the course of communist construction are resolved by the Party from the standpoint of proletarian internationalism, by consistently pursuing the Leninist national policy, without ignoring or exaggerating national specifics.
Strangely enough, the decisions of the Twenty-Second _-_-_
~^^*^^ The CPSU in Resolutions. . ., Russ. ed., Part I, p. 711.
~^^**^^ The Road to Communism, p. 560.
331 Party Congress and the Programme (third) adopted by it are to this day portrayed by bourgeois falsifiers as the proclamation of a line towards the merging of nations already today, in the course of communist construction. However, all this has nothing in common with the Party's Leninist policy of promoting the development of nations and national relations or with the content of the current national and international processes.In the Programme of the CPSU it is unequivocally stated that nations will draw still closer together and achieve complete unity in the course of communist construction. By complete unity Lenin meant not the integration of nations but a state of national relations which would ensure ``the practical elimination of even the slightest national friction and the least national mistrust, an accelerated drawing together and fusion of nations that will be completed when the state withers away".^^*^^ Even the building of communism will not yet mean the integration of nations. On this point the CPSU Programme states: ``With the victory of communism in the USSR, the nations will draw still closer together, their economic and ideological unity will increase and the communist traits common to their spiritual make-up will develop. However, the obliteration of national distinctions, and especially of language distinctions, is a considerably longer process than the obliteration of class distinctions.''^^**^^
The new feature in the development of socialist nations and national relations is not the integration of nations, which will take place only in the distant future, but the formation of a new historical international community on the basis of the multi-national Soviet people. A distinguishing feature of this process is that it takes place not only when nations and nationalities become socialist but also in the course of their further all-round development. By virtue of the requirements of life itself and by the free will of all the peoples Russian was adopted by this emergent international community as a language of international intercourse, while socialist relations of production and a common economy became its economic foundation. An international culture common to all Soviet nations and nationalities is developing. New traditions, common to all builders of communism, are _-_-_
~^^*^^ V I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 325,
~^^**^^ The Road to Communism, p. 560.
332 coming into being on the basis of the progressive traditions of each nation. Marxism-Leninism is the foundation on which the common spiritual make-up of Soviet people of all nationalities is founded.Speaking of the achievements in the development of nations and national relations in the USSR, L. I. Brezhnev pointed out in his speech at the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties: ``All of you, comrades, know that in this sphere of socialist transformations, too, we have accomplished notable results which have been of fundamental significance to the revolutionary movement and in awakening the oppressed nations. The present stage of the building of communism demands that the attained successes should be not only consolidated but also developed. It is a matter of drawing still closer together all the nations and nationalities, further improving the work of educating the Soviet people in the spirit of Soviet patriotism and socialist internationalism and of intolerance of the ideology of nationalism and racialism.''^^*^^
The Great October Socialist Revolution confirmed the immutability of the Marxist-Leninist proposition that the national question is subordinate to the main question, that of power and of the victory of the revolution.
The CPSU's experience has shown how important it is in a multi-national country to take the interests of the oppressed nationalities into account opportunely, and, in conformity with the demands of life, to introduce various changes into the programme and tactical slogans in order steadily to strengthen the united front of the proletariat fighting for socialism and the oppressed peoples seeking liberation.
The CPSU's profound understanding of the laws of social development and its wise tactics helped the working class of the USSR not only to uproot manifestations of Great-Power chauvinism but prevent the national self-consciousness of formerly oppressed peoples to grow into nationalism and chauvinism. The CPSU directed the growing national selfconsciousness into the channel of revolutionary struggle and was thus able to use it as a major factor in consolidating Soviet power and building socialism.
Where backward peoples have a very small working class _-_-_
~^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 169.
333 or no proletariat at all, there is the danger of a one-sided evolution of national self-consciousness, of its degeneration into nationalism and chauvinism; there is the threat of the self-isolation of peoples and, in the long run, of the loss of revolutionary gains. It will be safe to say that people became aware of the gravity of this danger only during the past few years when the world witnessed the bitter experience of China, where an outburst of nationalism and chauvinism took place 15 years after the victory of the revolution. At the same time, only today can we really appreciate the full majesty of Lenin's genius. He warned the working class and its Party that with the growth of national self-awareness nationalism might acquire dangerous proportions.It does not follow from the above that after the October Revolution it was generally found possible to avoid an intensification of nationalistic tendencies. Much time was needed to stem the influence of the bourgeois-nationalistic counter-revolution over part of the masses in the non-Russian regions and ensure the triumph of the socialist revolution in these regions. The art of leading the masses in a multinational country consists in pursuing correct tactics towards sections of the population infected with nationalism. In the Party Programme adopted by the Eighth Party Congress, it is emphasised that ``the proletariat of the nations that were oppressors has to exercise special care and attention with regard to survivals of national feelings among the masses of oppressed or unequal nations. This is the only policy that can create the conditions for really lasting and voluntary unity between heterogeneous elements of the international proletariat. This is shown by the experience of uniting a number of non-Russian Soviet republics round Soviet Russia''.^^*^^ The Tenth, Twelfth and Sixteenth Party congresses devoted particular attention to the struggle against deviations towards Russian Great-Power chauvinism and local bourgeois nationalism.^^**^^
The struggle against manifestations of bourgeois nationalism and the drive to educate the masses in the spirit of proletarian internationalism acquired special importance in the non-Russian areas. A point specially underscored in the decisions of the Fourth Conference of the Party Central _-_-_
~^^*^^ The CPSU in Resolutions..., Part I, Russ. ed., p. 417.
~^^**^^ Ibid., Part I, pp. 562, 717; Part II, p. 21.
334 Committee with top-echelon functionaries of the non-- Russian republics and regions, held in June 1923, was: ``If the Party organisation must reckon not only with national but even with nationalist sentiments insofar as they affect large sections of the people, then, on the other hand, it must make sure that no part of it succumbs to these sentiments.''^^*^^An important contribution made by the CPSU to the theory and practice of the national liberation movement is that in the backward non-Russian areas it evolved the most expedient way of carrying out general democratic and socialist tasks. This concerns chiefly the content and form of political power in the most backward areas (Extreme North and part of Central Asia), where initially this power was in effect a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry and, subsequently, with the growth of local cadres of the working class, gave way to the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat. The same may be said of the economic, particularly agrarian, reforms. Thus, in the course of several years the settlement of the agrarian-peasant question was reduced to the abolition of patriarchal-feudal relations.
New specific forms of struggle and organisation of the masses were evolved in the process of the revolutionary reconstruction of the life of the oppressed peoples of Russia, and local, specific conditions were comprehensively taken into account. For example, instead of abolishing nationalistic and religious institutions and banning traditional holidays and rites, a struggle was patiently and perseveringly waged for many years to change their content while retaining^^1^^ their form. For a long time the Communist organisations in the outlying non-Russian areas remained peasant. The Soviets of Working People's Deputies were composed also of peasants. When new public organisations and institutions were set up it was necessary to take the situation into account. There was a period when the number of religious schools was even increased, mixed Soviet-shariat courts were set up, and various women's organisations and unions of working peasants and so on were formed.
In the Soviet Union under the guidance of the Communist Party national-democratic revolutions evolved peacefully into socialist revolutions. This may be illustrated by the _-_-_
~^^*^^ The CPSU in Resolutions..., Russ. ed., Part I, p. 761.
335 reforms in Khiva and Bukhara, where, it will be recalled, popular, essentially national-democratic, revolutions gradually evolved into socialist revolutions.The Communist Party was the first to substantiate theoretically the possibility of non-capitalist development for backward peoples, and in practice implemented their transition to socialism before the Second World War. In the Soviet Union non-capitalist development was part of the triumph of the socialist revolution and the building of socialism, and it was defined in the decisions of the Tenth and Twelfth Party congresses on the national question.''^^*^^
A specific of non-capitalist development of backward peoples in the USSR was that in the outlying regions it was started with political reforms, and then economic reforms and a cultural revolution were put into effect with the allround assistance of the advanced nations and by drawing the local population into creative work. ``The October Revolution and the building of socialism awakened and roused to independent activity formerly backward peoples, some of which were thus saved from extinction. During the building of socialism they acquired their own statehood, put an end to their economic and cultural backwardness and gradually adopted the highest socialist forms of economy and culture. This achievement was all the more remarkable in view of the fact that many nations which, when the Revolution was accomplished, had been at the stage of feudalism or even the patriarchal-clan system, by-passed capitalism in their progress towards socialism.''^^**^^
The CPSU theoretically substantiated and, on the basis of the Soviet system, achieved the consolidation and progress of backward peoples from the clan and tribal system to socialist nations and nationalities, and revealed the essence of the national question during the building of socialism and communism.
Despite a number of specific features of the solution of the national question, the CPSU's experience has greatly facilitated the liberation struggle of the oppressed peoples and also the theoretical and practical work of the fraternal Communist and Workers' Parties in directing this struggle.
The CPSU's experience of solving the national question _-_-_
~^^*^^ The CPSU in Resolutions. . ., Russ. ed., Part I, pp. 553--63.
~^^**^^ 50th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, p. 15.
336 in the pre-war period was mirrored in the work of the Communist International. The Comintern's basic documents on the leadership of the national liberation movement were the decisions of its Second Congress, which was held in JulyAugust 1920 under Lenin's direct guidance. For this Congress Lenin wrote the ``Draft Theses on National and Colonial Questions'', which were discussed by members of the Party CC and the Soviet Government and leading functionaries of a number of non-Russian Soviet republics. Closely scrutinised and approved by the Congress, these theses were for many years the guideline for the strategy and tactics of the Communists in the leadership of the national liberation movement of the peoples of colonies and dependent countries. The Third and Fourth Congresses of the Comintern, held with Lenin's participation, and Lenin's new works published after the Second Congress augmented and specified the programme propositions of the Communist International. These propositions focussed attention on the importance of the national question in the colonies and on the need for a united national front of all anti-imperialist forces.While helping the Comintern to prepare the draft decisions of the above-mentioned Congress and analyse the subsequent stages of the national liberation movement, the CPSU paid particular attention to the character and motive forces of this movement and to the forms and methods used by the fraternal Communist Parties to direct the liberation struggle of oppressed peoples. These were extraordinarily complex problems and the quest for the most practical solution took several years.
In its theses on the tasks of the Comintern, the Fourteenth Party Conference advanced the important idea that ``not only the questions of the speed and time of the approach of the world revolution but also of its route are treated in not quite the same manner as was believed at the beginning of the revolution''.^^*^^ The Conference correctly named also the colonial system of imperialism among the more or less probable areas where it would unfold, noting that the `` national liberation movements are growing and spreading''.^^**^^ An unerring understanding of the place and role of the national question in the national liberation movement of the _-_-_
~^^*^^ The CPSU in Resolutions..., Russ. ed., Part II, p. 170.
~^^**^^ Ibid.
__PRINTERS_P_337_COMMENT__ 22---2635 337 Chinese people was shown by the joint plenary meeting of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission of the CPSU(B) in July-August 1927, which condemned as totally wrong the ``counterposing of the national revolution to the agrarian revolution''.^^*^^ While underscoring the scale and mass character of the national liberation movement,^^**^^ the Communist Party consistently combated ultra-Right deviations in the Communist leadership of the national liberation movement. In particular, this was mirrored in the decisions of the Fourteenth Party Conference in April 1925, and the joint plenary meeting of the Party CC and Central Control Commission in 1927, and other documents.Together with all fraternal Parties the CPSU(B) made a large contribution towards theoretically generalising the experience of the Chinese revolution for the period 1924--27.
In a special resolution on the problems of the Chinese revolution, the joint plenary meeting of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission of the CPSU(B) in August 1927 characterised as a most flagrant distortion of Leninism the Trotskyite views on the national and colonial questions in general and on the ways of the development of the Chinese revolution in particular. By slurring over the distinctions between the oppressor imperialist states and the oppressed colonies and dependent countries, Trotsky and his supporters ignored Lenin's injunction that in all colonial and national problems it was necessary ``to proceed from concrete realities, not from abstract postulates''.^^***^^ Showing the untenability of Trotsky's assertions that an alliance between the proletariat and the national bourgeoisie was inexpedient, the plenary meeting declared that actually an agreement with it would ``facilitate the growth of the forces of the working class and the peasantry and that this is precisely what underlies the Leninist tactics in a colonial country which have been borne out by experience and by the course of the class struggle''.^^****^^ This stand was unanimously endorsed at the Fifteenth Party Congress. Noting that the Trotsky theory of permanent revolution was objectively helping the imperialists and the Right wing of the _-_-_
~^^*^^ The CPSU in Resolutions..., Part II, Russ. ed., p. 367.
~^^**^^ The Comintern and the CPSU(B) on the Chinese Revolution, Russ. ed., Moscow-Leningrad, 1927, p. 51.
~^^***^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 240.
~^^****^^ The CPSU in Resolutions..., Russ. ed., Part II, p. 369.
338 Kuomintang, the Congress recorded its unequivocal support of the decisions adopted by the CC CPSU(B) and by the Seventh, Eighth and Ninth plenary meetings of the Comintern Executive on the problems of the Chinese revolution.After this crushing defeat Trotsky accused the Leninist Party of ``national narrowness''. At the same time, he wrote to the programme commission of the Sixth Comintern Congress suggesting his theory as the guideline for the leadership of the riational liberation movement. After hearing the CPSU(B) Central Committee's views on this point, the delegates to the Congress denounced Trotsky's antiLeninist stand and his fight against the Bolshevik Party. On August 28, 1928 the Congress heard a joint statement from the delegations of Turkey, Persia, Syria, Egypt and a number of other countries, which not only rejected the accusation of ``national narrowness" hurled at the CPSU(B) but stressed that from their own experience the peoples of these countries regarded the USSR as the ``only mainstay of the international working-class movement and liberation movement of the colonial countries''.^^*^^ This statement was backed by delegations from the Communist Parties of Latin American and South African countries, New Zealand, Canada and some other countries, which highly appraised ``the political support the CPSU(B) was rendering all oppressed peoples, the Chinese revolution, in particular''.^^**^^ The delegations of China, India, Japan, Indonesia and other countries declared that by its achievements in building socialism the Soviet Union was drawing into the liberation struggle not only the proletariat of the capitalist countries but all oppressed peoples, ``for the colonial working masses are seeing with their own eyes that they can win their liberation in the struggle for socialism only in alliance with and under the leadership of the proletariat, as in the USSR''.^^***^^
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union contributed substantially towards working out a new phase of Comintern policy in the leadership of the national liberation movement. This is recorded in the decisions of the Seventh Comintern Congress held in July-August 1935. First, immense significance was attached to the national question and the _-_-_
~^^*^^ The Communist International on the CPSU(B), Russ. ed., MoscowLeningrad, 1928, p. 30.
~^^**^^ Ibid., p. 20.
~^^***^^ Ibid., p. 28.
__PRINTERS_P_339_COMMENT__ 22* 339 struggle of the oppressed peoples against foreign imperialism, for freedom of national development and the attainment of state independence. Second, it was noted that the temporary prominence given to the national question in the life of the oppressed peoples was making it possible to bring the most diverse social forces, including the intelligentsia and the national bourgeoisie, into the struggle for its solution and thereby create an anti-imperialist national front. Third, a number of transitional stages on the road to socialism, among which particular importance was attached to noncapitalist development as foretold by Lenin, was recognised as inevitable for backward countries.The great contribution made by the CPSU(B) to drawing up the decisions of the Seventh Comintern Congress helped the fraternal Communist Parties to get a clearer view of the prospects of the national liberation movement. With the active participation and direct assistance of the CPSU(B), the Parties in the Communist International gradually surmounted Leftist views and took the road of systematic, organised work aimed at rallying the masses of the colonies and dependent countries for liberation from foreign rule and for the building of the new life. This was of tremendous importance, especially during the Second World War, when the Comintern was disbanded and Communists were confronted with the task of independently charting their political line at the new stage of the liberation struggle of the oppressed peoples.
__*_*_*__The picture of the colonial world underwent a fundamental change during and after the Second World War. The scale of the national liberation movement, especially in Asia, reached an unprecedented level. To a huge extent imperialist Japan's defeat by the Soviet Army cleared the way to the victory of the great Chinese revolution and for the establishment of People's Democracies in North Korea and North Vietnam. Communists won increasing influence over the progress of the liberation struggle in Africa and Latin America. ``Instead of a further enslavement of the peoples of colonial and dependent countries,'' it was stated in the Central Committee's report to the Nineteenth Party Congress 340 in October 1952, ``there has taken place a further powerful upsurge of the national liberation struggle in these countries and this has aggravated the crisis of the colonial system of imperialism.''^^*^^ Of enormous importance to the destinies of the oppressed peoples of the colonies and dependent countries was the formation of the world socialist system headed by the USSR. As it grew stronger, the socialist system began to render the national liberation movement increasingly more tangible assistance.
In subsequent years the theoretical views and practical activities of the Communist and Workers' Parties and the development of the entire national liberation movement were strongly influenced by the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU. According to the unanimous assessment of the Communists of all countries, this Congress opened new horizons for the oppressed peoples in their struggle for liberation and helped to strengthen the link of the national liberation movement with the world socialist system and the international working-class movement.
Of particular importance for the Communists and all working people of Asian, African and Latin American countries were the Congress conclusions, founded on the Leninist teaching, on the change in the alignment of forces in the world in favour of socialism and on the resultant possibility of preventing another world war; on the diversity of the forms of transition to socialism; on the possibility, under certain conditions, of achieving the transition to socialism through the peaceful development of the revolution, without civil war.
The CPSU played a large role in helping to draw up the decisions of the 1957 and 1960 Moscow Meetings of Communist and Workers' Parties. Of the most vital significance in the decisions adopted by these Meetings were the conclusions on the downfall of the colonial system of imperialism, the conversion of the national liberation movement into one of the powerful torrents of the world revolutionary process and the real possibility for the liberated peoples of moving towards socialism without passing through the capitalist stage of development, with the support of the world socialist system and by setting up a national democratic state.
In view of the fact that the unparalleled upswing of the _-_-_
~^^*^^ Pravda, October 6, 1952.
341 national liberation movement had given rise to the danger of erroneous interpretations of the autonomy of this movement and to theories about ``special'', purely ``national'' forms of socialism, the Meetings, acting on a proposal from the CPSU, found it necessary to give concrete and unequivocal answers to these questions. In the Declaration of the 1957 Meeting it was stated that ``the tremendous growth of the forces of socialism has stimulated the rapid extension of the anti-imperialist national movement in the post-war period''.^^*^^ In the Statement of the 1960 Meeting it was likewise stressed that the ``forces of world socialism contributed decisively to the struggle of the colonial and dependent peoples for liberation from imperialist oppression''.^^**^^ The 1960 Meeting drew the attention of the Communists of all countries to the particular need for intensifying the propagation of the ideas of proletarian internationalism.The CPSU's fidelity to the programme documents of the world communist movement was demonstrated in the decisions of its Twenty-Second Congress and also in the Party Programme adopted by that Congress. It is reiterated in the Programme that the ``CPSU regards it as its internationalist duty to assist the peoples who have set out to win and strengthen their national independence, all peoples who are fighting for the complete abolition of the colonial system''.^^***^^ It would be hard to overestimate the importance of the analysis, made in the Programme, of the content of our epoch or of how it assesses the significance of the collapse of the imperialist colonial system and the place and role of each of the three torrents of the modern world revolutionary process, determines the content of the national liberation revolutions at the present stage and defines the prospects of their development.
The growing scale of the national liberation movement has served some Communist Parties as grounds for drawing the conclusion that this movement is the principal and even only major factor deciding the fate of imperialism at the present stage. Moreover, it has been asserted that the liberation of the oppressed peoples is their own affair and that they can carry out this task by themselves. Here the _-_-_
~^^*^^ The Struggle for Peace, Democracy and Socialism, p. 7.
~^^**^^ Ibid., p. 62.
~^^***^^ The Road to Communism, p. 497.
342 implication is that the national liberation movement is absolutely exclusive and that it is enough for it to ``receive armaments" to destroy imperialism. The contradiction. between the national liberation movement and imperialism was declared the principal contradiction of the present epoch, while the territory embraced by the national liberation movement was proclaimed the main region of the world revolution. Views of this kind were advanced by the leadership of the Communist Party of China, which began to make every effort to isolate the national liberation movement from the world socialist system and the international working-class movement. Enormous harm is also being inflicted on the liberation struggle of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America by the adventurist calls for an armed struggle in countries that have only just won political independence and by the rejection of the Leninist proposition on the possibility of non-capitalist development for the less developed peoples.The CPSU has resolutely come forward in defence of the Marxist-Leninist theses on the place and role of the national liberation movement in the world revolutionary process, against any revision of the decisions on the strategy and tactics of the Communist and Workers' Parties adopted unanimously at the 1957 and 1960 Meetings. In some documents of the CC CPSU, particularly in the resolutions passed by the plenary meetings of the Central Committee in February 1964 and December 1966, it is convincingly shown that the stand adopted by the leadership of the Communist Party of China was theoretically untenable and politically harmful. Rejecting the slanderous accusations that it was underrating the liberation struggle of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America and was rendering this struggle inadequate assistance, the CPSU paid special attention to elucidating the place and role of the national liberation movement in the present-day world revolutionary process.
Bv its class content the national liberation movement is not socialist and, consequently, it cannot play the decisive role in mankind's transition from capitalism to socialism. Peasants form the largest contingent in that movement. In many countries, particularly in most of the former colonies and semi-colonies in Asia and Africa, the proletariat, the only exponent of socialist ideas and fighter for socialism, has either not taken shape or is only in its embryonic stage. But even in countries where it is active in the liberation 343 struggle, the leadership of the revolution is in almost all cases in the hands of the national bourgeoisie or revolutionary-democratic elements. The national liberation movement cannot develop, much less achieve victory, if it is isolated from the other torrents of the world revolutionary process. It emerged and develops under the impact of the international working-class movement and the world socialist system. Without their determining role there would have been no general crisis of capitalism, which made possible the present upsurge of the liberation struggle of the oppressed peoples.
The leadership of the Communist Party of China, however, moved the national liberation movement to the forefront, deliberately adopting a one-sided approach. It takes into account only one factor---the force of the direct blows that have been dealt imperialism in recent years. Indeed, after the formation of the world socialist system the most telling blows were inflicted on imperialism by the national liberation movement. But the place and role of the working-class movement of the developed capitalist countries in the world revolutionary process are determined not only by the class struggle in the form of strikes or even uprisings. There are a number of other factors: the socialist content of this movement and its theoretical and practical influence in strengthening the world socialist system and in furthering the growth of the national liberation^^1^^ movement. All in all, in mankind's transition from capitalism to socialism all these factors are constant, while the national liberation movement became a relatively independent torrent of the world revolutionary process only at the third stage of capitalism's general crisis. The international working-class movement has been and remains the decisive force in the development of the world revolution. This is all the more true, as with the deepening of the national liberation revolutions the leading role in them as well will pass to the working class, and the movement itself will integrate with the international working-class movement.
The national liberation movement's indivisible link with the international working class and the world socialist system gives it its special significance.
The Twenty-Third Congress of the CPSU was a further expression of the tremendous attention which the Communist Party of the Soviet Union accords to the problems of the liberation struggle of the oppressed and developing peoples. 344 In the report of the Central Committee delivered by L. I. Brezhnev it is noted that ``the Communist Party of the Soviet Union regards as its internationalist duty continued all-round support of the peoples' struggle for final liberation from colonial and neo-colonial oppression''.^^*^^ In the resolution adopted by the Congress on the report of the CC it is stated: ``The Congress instructs the CC CPSU to continue to support the peoples fighting against colonial oppression and neo-colonialism; to develop all-round co-operation with the newly-independent countries, to promote in every way the consolidation of the anti-imperialist front of the peoples of all continents, and to extend its contacts with the Communist and revolutionary-democratic parties of the young national states.~"^^**^^
The role of the CPSU with regard to the national liberation movement is not confined to the elaboration of its theoretical problems. The CPSU does much to organise practical assistance for the liberation struggle of the oppressed peoples of colonies and dependent countries and support the young independent national states of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
The volume, forms and methods of Soviet assistance to the national liberation movement are not immutable and depend chiefly on the stages of this movement's development. In the period of struggle for political independence, the Soviet Union rendered mostly moral and political support, and, when necessary, supplied armaments. In the period of struggle to ensure economic independence and promote economic development, the Soviet Union rendered chiefly economic assistance, helping the young countries to industrialise, put the agrarian reform into effect, train cadres, and so on.
An immense role was played by the Soviet Union's emphatic demand for the cessation of imperialist aggression against Egypt, Syria and Iraq. It will be recalled that when this demand was made the imperialists were compelled to abandon their plans of aggression. It may be said without exaggeration that the overwhelming majority of the Asian, African and Latin American countries which took the road of the national liberation revolution received powerful support from the USSR. The freedom and independence of the _-_-_
~^^*^^ 23rd Congress of the CPSU, p. 41.
~^^**^^ Ibid., pp. 283--84.
345 Cuban people was ensured largely through Soviet all-round assistance and direct military backing. In many ways the people of Vietnam are able to wage a successful struggle against United States aggression because they have the possibility of relying on massive assistance from the Soviet Union.The USSR frustrated the designs of world imperialism, which in June 1967 attempted to halt the progressive development of the peoples of the United Arab Republic, Syria and Jordan by organising the aggression launched by the reactionary military circles of Israel.
The CPSU and the entire Soviet people are successfully discharging their main internationalist duty by doing ``the utmost possible in one country for the development, support and awakening of the revolution in all countries''.^^*^^ But they have never engaged in ``exporting revolution''. It is quite a different matter to render all possible assistance to peoples fighting imperialism for freedom and national independence, defending what they have won and building a new life. Lenin always insisted that such assistance was vital to oppressed peoples fighting for liberation and to the socialist countries themselves. The peoples of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries faithfully abide by this injunction. In the Programme of the CPSU it is stated: ``The CPSU considers fraternal alliance with the peoples who have thrown off the colonial or semi-colonial yoke to be a cornerstone of its international policy. This alliance is based on the common vital interests of world socialism and the world national liberation movement.''^^**^^
__*_*_*__In December 1922 Lenin spoke of the morrow of world history ``when the awakening peoples oppressed by imperialism are finally aroused and the decisive long and hard struggle for their liberation begins''.^^***^^ This morrow has now come: the scale of the national liberation movement is now unparalleled and the movement plays a prominent role in mankind's transition from capitalism to socialism.
_-_-_~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 292.
~^^**^^ The Road to Communism, p. 497.
~^^***^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 36, p. 611.
346In fighting for their national liberation, the enslaved peoples are now coming out not simply against foreign rule but against the whole imperialist system of oppression and exploitation. Arising as anti-feudal and anti-colonial movements, the national liberation revolutions objectively evolve into a struggle against capitalism generally.
Another feature of the national liberation movement at the present stage is that formerly oppressed peoples do not rest content with political independence. They take the road of determined struggle for the eradication of all foreign monopoly influence and for the rejuvenation of their national economy. Exposing the apologists of imperialism and colonialism, Lenin wrote with indignation that ``they are talking of national liberation. .. leaving out economic liberation. Yet in reality it is the latter that is the chief thing''.^^*^^ To this day Lenin's words expose those who seek to limit the boundaries of the national liberation movement and doom the peoples who have won political independence to economic bondage to imperialism.
The third feature of the modern national liberation movement is that its social basis has grown immensely. The contradictions of capitalism have now become so acute that not only the working masses of the oppressed peoples but also the prosperous strata of town and countryside, including the national bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia, are joining in the united front of struggle against the colonialists. Only the compradore bourgeoisie and the local feudal nobility remain on the side of the foreign imperialists.
The fourth feature of the national liberation movement lies in the great diversity of the forms and methods of struggle employed by the peoples to achieve freedom and independence. Some have had to fight a war of liberation for many years (Algeria, Kenya), others achieved victory by an armed uprising (Zanzibar), still others unanimously voted against colonial rule in a referendum (Guinea), and still others overthrew the hated pro-imperialist regime by peaceful, nation-wide action (Congo---Brazzaville).
There is one more important feature of the national liberation movement: after the conquest of political independence, the national liberation revolutions continue to develop and the consequent struggle for economic independence calls _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 18, p. 398.
347 forth socio-economic reforms that draw the countries concerned away from the orbit of capitalism, with the result that the material requisites are created for the transition to socialism. This is the substance of all the far-reaching changes which are taking place already today or will begin to take place in the immediate future on the huge territory of the former colonial world.We thus see that the present-day national liberation revolutions are revolutions of a new type which differ essentially from the bourgeois-democratic revolutions of the past for their tasks, features, nature and motive forces.
First and foremost, they are a democratic type of people's revolution. This is due to the fact that in the struggle to achieve the first stage of the revolution---the expulsion of the colonialists and the attainment of political independence ---the interests of all classes and segments of the population, with the exception of those who collaborate with the imperialists, coincide. Lenin foretold that democratic revolutions of this type inevitably acquire a mass character and turn into an independent torrent of the world revolutionary process. ``The social revolution,'' he wrote in 1916, ``can come only in the form of an epoch in which are combined civil war by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie in the advanced countries and a whole series of democratic and revolutionary movements, including the national liberation movement, in the undeveloped, backward and oppressed nations.''^^*^^
Lenin's prevision has materialised. In a situation witnessing a tremendous aggravation of the contradictions of capitalism, the differences between the monopoly bourgeoisie of the imperialist states and the national bourgeoisie of the oppressed countries have also sharply increased. The democratic stream in the national liberation movements has widened, merging with the struggle for socialism. Life is bearing out Lenin's words that the victory of socialism cannot be ensured without ``an all-round, consistent and revolutionary struggle for democracy''.^^**^^
It is of the utmost importance to further the teaching that democracy plays an enormous role in the struggle for socialism, that democracy and socialism are interrelated. _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 60.
~^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 22, p. 144.
348 Today democracy, particularly if it is established as a result of revolution, is no longer conceivable without far-reaching socio-economic reforms, which ultimately lead to socialism. That is why the strategy of national liberation revolutions is to resolve democratic tasks at the first stage by striking the main blow at foreign imperialism and local reaction. For the Asian and African countries the proclamation of political independence signified in most cases the transfer of power to the hands of democratic circles or the national bourgeoisie. Although the positions of foreign capital are fairly strong in these countries, the democratic reforms being carried out under popular pressure are a major step along the road of progress.In the early 1960s the national liberation revolutions entered the stage of struggle for the economic independence of the liberated peoples. At that stage the process of political liberation is still being completed and, at the same time, the struggle is centred on safeguarding economic independence against the domination of foreign capital, promoting the rejuvenation of the national economy and raising the living standard and cultural level of the population. The Mao Tse-tung group are wrong when they assert that priority for economic tasks at the second stage of the national liberation movement signifies neglect of the political struggle against imperialism and means underrating the liberation struggle itself. On the contrary, the political struggle of the developing peoples against imperialism steadily mounts after the centre of the national liberation movement shifts to the economic sphere. The winning and consolidation of economic independence is not the cause solely of one people or another. It is a form in which the transition of all peoples to socialism is manifested.
The national liberation movement remains democratic also at its second stage. However, as Lenin said, there is democracy and democracy. The democracy of the second stage means that the establishment of people's power and the granting of political freedoms must be followed by a series of deep-going socio-economic reforms that benefit the vast majority of the nation. These include the restriction of foreign capital and of the exploiting tendencies of the local capitalists and landowners, the creation of public ownership in the form of a state sector in industry, and the emergence of co-operative ownership in the countryside. The 349 enforcement of measures of this kind provides the prerequisites for the evolution of the national liberation revolutions into .socialist revolutions. Very recently this process could be observed in Cuba. There is no doubt that this evolution will take place in a number of other countries.
The question of leaders of the revolution is resolved in a new way in the course of the national liberation movement. Due to the numerical weakness or total absence of a proletariat the leading role in the revolution was played in some countries by the national bourgeoisie (India), in others by the petty-bourgeois sections of the population (Algeria), and in still others by revolutionary-democratic elements from the patriotic section of the Army officers and intelligentsia (Egypt, Syria). The fact that life introduces essential changes into various theoretical propositions, Lenin wrote, should not surprise anybody. It is essential, he pointed out, ``to grasp the incontestable truth that a Marxist must take cognisance of real life, of the true facts of reality, and not cling to a theory of yesterday, which, like all theories, at best only outlines the main and the general, only comes near to embracing life in all its complexity''.^^*^^ Today when the world revolution is being joined by more and more countries and peoples with historical and national features of their own, this proposition is particularly topical.
The problem of the victory of the national liberation revolution is extremely complex and depends on a multitude of factors: the given country's level of socio-economic development, the alignment of class forces in it, the activity level of the popular masses, the strength of the position held by the foreign imperialists and their myrmidons from among the local feudal nobility and compradore bourgeoisie, the correctness of the policy pursued by the parties or groups heading the revolution, and the possibility of receiving assistance from the world socialist system and fraternal developing countries. However, a factor of overriding importance in ensuring the victory of the national liberation is the consolidation of the leading role played in it by parties adhering to Marxist-Leninist positions.
The immediate and principal task of the Communists of the former colonies and backward countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America is, as Lenin formulated it, to ``create _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 45.
350 independent contingents of fighters and party organisations''.^^*^^ Much has already been done to carry out this injunction. There are Communist and Workers' Parties in many Asian, African and Latin American countries. It is generally recognised that no fighters are more faithful and devoted to the cause of liberation of the oppressed peoples than the Communists. Their prestige and popularity among the people are growing steadily. Of the 28 Communist Parties that emerged in the world in the period from 1939 to 1963, 26 are in Asian, African or Latin American countries embraced by the national liberation movement.The organisational views of the Communists of the fighting continents are notable for their realistic approach to the obtaining situation. In some countries where the proletariat is only just appearing or where the socio-political conditions are unsuitable for the independent existence of Communist Parties, the Communists join the united front of national liberation and make every effort to promote and strengthen socialist trends in that front. In a number of cases the efficacy of these tactics has been confirmed by life.
Ideological steeling and the elaboration of the scientific foundations of strategy and tactics remain the principal task of the Asian, African and Latin American Communist Parties. It must be taken into account that the composition and views of these Parties are necessarily influenced by the peasant, essentially, petty-bourgeois composition of the population, among which they have to work. Despite all difficulties the Communist Parties have made tremendous headway in solving this problem, too. The tangible results are, in particular, the higher ideological and theoretical level displayed by the Party cadres, and the work that is being conducted to expound the principles of Marxism-Leninism to the people.
The Communists of Asia, Africa and Latin America exhaustively analyse the new phenomena that arise in the course of the national liberation movement, creatively enlarge on revolutionary theory and improve the forms and methods of struggle. Extremely opportune today is Lenin's injunction to the Communists of all countries to concentrate on ``the search after forms of the transition or the approach''^^**^^ to the socialist revolution.
_-_-_~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 244.
~^^**^^ Ibid., p. 92.
351Today it is particularly important to know the alignment of class forces on the national and the international level, skilfully form the political army of revolution, and frame correct strategy and tactics that take the national specifics of the liberated countries into account. The distinctive features that manifest themselves in the political processes of these countries provide further evidence bearing out the Marxist-Leninist teaching and its conclusion that mankind is moving towards communism not according to immutable patterns but through a diversity of forms of social development. Lenin was right when he said Communists had to ``seek out, investigate, predict, and grasp that which is nationally specific and nationally distinctive, in the concrete manner in which each country should tackle a single, international task''.^^*^^
The political and socio-economic situation in the emer-. gent countries will inevitably grow more complicated with the development of the process of transition from the national liberation to the socialist revolution, and the Communist and Workers' Parties of these countries are preparing their ranks for this eventuality.
Lenin foretold that as an important, progressive factor rallying all the popular forces for the implementation of national democratic tasks nationalism could play a key role in the national liberation movement.^^**^^ Unfortunately, the Communists of some countries have forgotten another injunction, namely, that nationalism is progressive only within certain limits.^^***^^ In some countries disregard of this truth led to nationalistic vacillation in the Communist Parties, and to the abandonment of proletarian internationalism. Today proletarian internationalism is of paramount importance for uniting the forces against imperialism, which is the common .enemy. Enriched with a new content and having a considerably larger sphere of action, proletarian internationalism has now become not only the proletariat's banner of struggle but also the expression of solidarity of all revolutionary and anti-imperialist forces. No present-day revolutionary contingent can operate successfully outside this solidarity, outside the great principles of internationalism.
_-_-_~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 92.
~^^**^^ Ibid., Vol. 20, p. 412; Vol. 23, p. 59.
~^^***^^ Ibid., Vol. 20, p. 35.
352The fidelity of the Communist Parties of Asia, Africa and Latin America to the Leninist teaching is the major condition for the victory of the national liberation movement. ``The experience of the revolutionary movement during the last few years,'' L. I. Brezhnev told the Twenty-Third Congress of the CPSU, ``has again demonstrated that success is achieved by Parties that adhere to the tried and true Leninist principles of strategy and tactics, and take account of the existing situation.''^^*^^
The national liberation movement is at present faced with the pressing problem of choosing the road of further development: to give in to the influence of imperialism and take the road of capitalism or to break away from this influence and take the road of socialism. The ideals of socialism have won a vast following in the young developing states, although there are diverse interpretations of these ideals. In December 1963 Sekou Toure defined the socialist programme of the Democratic Party of Guinea as the non-capitalist development of a peasant country. True, even the most serious programmes of socialist construction in the developing countries do not as yet fully conform to the Marxist-Leninist teaching. In fact, most of them are far removed from scientific socialism. But the enormous interest in socialism observed in Asian, African and Latin American countries is indeed noteworthy. The fact that socialist ideals have become widespread is a sign of our epoch, the epoch of mankind's transition from capitalism to socialism.
Non-capitalist development is the most popular way of transition in the newly-liberated countries. The authoritative confirmation of this are the decisions of the Hayana TriContinental Solidarity Conference of January 1966. One of these decisions states that the Conference supports ``the principle of abolishing exploitation of man through non-- capitalist development leading to socialism in keeping with the specific conditions in each country''.^^**^^
In order to prevent the peoples from taking this road, bourgeois propaganda goes to all lengths in an effort to discredit the Marxist-Leninist Parties which urge the adoption of non-capitalist development. One of the main arguments is that this programme ignores the national question, and _-_-_
~^^*^^ 23rd Congress of the CPSU, p. 30.
~^^**^^ World Marxist Review, 1966, No. 4, p. 4.
__PRINTERS_P_353_COMMENT__ 33---2636 353 the Marxist-Leninist Parties themselves are depicted as an anti-national force. Assertions of this kind, naturally, have nothing in common with reality.In proposing the programme of non-capitalist development, evolved by Lenin and put into effect by many peoples of the USSR and by the Mongolian People's Republic, the Marxist-Leninist Parties do not ignore the problem of national advancement. On the contrary, they seek to create the most favourable conditions for such progress. Non-capitalist development ensures successful national progress chiefly because it allows for the possibility of putting an end to foreign capitalist rule and paralysing its influence, and uniting the people of the given country in the process of seeking solutions to national problems of socio-economic development. Also very important is the fact that non-- capitalist development ensures the consolidation of the state sector in the economy and, thereby, the accelerated growth of the national working class, which thus plays a steadily increasing role in social life. Lastly, non-capitalist development signifies a socialist orientation, which cannot be consistently implemented without the young independent states gradually entering the world socialist market. Cooperation with socialist countries immeasurably facilitates the solution of the most difficult problems of socio-economic development and also national consolidation and national relations generally.
Non-capitalist development thus hugely activates national and international processes in the young states. The common tasks of progressive development, on the one hand, and the broad democratisation of social life, on the other, make it possible to unite the most diverse ethnic groups and promote national consolidation and the formation of the nation. The swift numerical growth of the working class and the influence exerted on it by the international workingclass movement and the world socialist system are turning the proletariat into an increasingly more important factor of the formation of the nation and of the moulding of its spiritual make-up and social structure.
In order to see how the young states go over to noncapitalist development and what this consists of it is necessary to take account of the complex post-liberation situation in these countries. While building up the new state apparatus, the liberated peoples put into effect the first reforms in the 354 economy. It is precisely here that the logic of events dictates the need for transition to the non-capitalist road. One of the main problems confronting the former colonial peoples is the widening gap between the young and the imperialist states in the level of economic development. Today this gap is at least 100--150 years. Besides, experience shows that capitalist development of the liberated countries only widens this gap. This is what brings progressive circles round to the conclusion that backward peoples can accelerate their economic growth and achieve faster social progress only by following the non-capitalist path.
Broad sections of the population are inevitably drawn into the decision of the choice of a road. In accordance with the will of the masses and sometimes under pressure from them, the political parties in power and the governments enforce important socio-economic measures. In Algeria this turning point was the mass movement of workers and peasants in the summer and autumn of 1962 demanding the nationalisation of the factories and also the estates of French colonialists who fled the country. The unity of the people achieved in the course of more than seven years of armed struggle was the force that ensured the establishment of state ownership under public management. The state sector became the country's economic foundation, while the local self-administration organs were the political basis for Algeria's transition to non-capitalist development.
The situation was different in Burma, where the long rule of the national bourgeoisie in alliance with the landowners and the clergy brought the country to an impasse: the economy stagnated, more and more foreign capital penetrated into the country and social contradictions grew acute. The destiny of the revolution was then taken over by revolutionary-democratic circles among the Army officers and intellectuals. They enforced a series of fundamental socio-- economic measures aimed chiefly at undermining the position of the foreign monopolies and their local mainstay---the big trade and usurious capital and the feudal nobility. Actively supported by the progressive forces and thanks to their objectively anti-imperialist content, these measures served as the foundation for the country's transition to non-capitalist development.
In all the countries that have adopted the non-capitalist road the power is now in the hands of revolutionarv-- __PRINTERS_P_355_COMMENT__ 23* 355 democratic elements from among the middle strata of the population and patriotic officers and intellectuals.
The success of the socio-economic reforms in the developing countries depends chiefly on how radical these reforms are and, consequently, on whether broad sections of the people are enlisted into the implementation of social transformations. The more radical the socio-economic reforms in the developing countries become, the more activity is displayed by the popular masses.
The first experience of non-capitalist development brought to light a number of important factors. Formerly it was believed that the demand for the nationalisation of the banks and factories and the abolition of the big landed estates could only be made in a revolutionary situation, and that these measures could be carried out mostly as soon as the dictatorship of the proletariat was established. This has not proved to be obligatory in the countries now following the non-capitalist road. These measures were enforced in these countries without the revolutionary situation that precedes the socialist revolution and without the establishment of a proletarian dictatorship.
Another new feature is that in individual cases the transition to a qualitatively new stage of the revolution was accomplished long before the political vanguard of the people, the Party, had taken shape. In some countries this vanguard was formed when non-capitalist development had already been started. A case in point is the United Arab Republic, where the formation of the Arab Socialist Union was only started in recent years. A similar situation obtained in Burma, where the Burmese Socialist Programme Party has, in effect, only begun to emerge. In Algeria the National Liberation Front had been in existence earlier, but after the country adopted the non-capitalist road it was fundamentally reorganised with a turn towards scientific socialism, although this turn has as yet not been completed.
By their class content the measures now being enforced in the countries following the non-capitalist road and the predominant ideology are of a transitional nature. Incidentally, this is also stressed by the political parties in power (Algeria, Burma, UAR). The present stage in these countries cannot, of course, be called a ``specific form of the socialist revolution'', as some people believe. The only features that non-capitalist and socialist development have in common 356 are the general aims and direction of the reforms. But the non-capitalist road, particularly its early stages, cannot be considered socialist. At the given stage its aim is not to destroy capitalism but greatly restrict the scope of its development. The situation arising at this stage inside and outside the country makes it possible to carry out socio-economic reforms, which objectively undermine capitalism and create the prerequisites for the establishment of socialism in future. To be more exact, the non-capitalist development we now observe in some countries is not a ``third road" of development, as bourgeois propaganda futilely tries to prove, but only a stage of transition to the socialist revolution.
An important feature in the political life of countries that have chosen to follow the non-capitalist road is that they are steadily becoming national democratic states. At the November 1960 Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties in Moscow it was pointed out that this type of state was the most suitable form for the period of non-capitalist development of the liberated peoples. Its task is to ensure national rejuvenation and social progress towards a gradual transition to socialism. The aim of a national democracy is to create the most favourable conditions for the preservation of the united popular front's leading role, which is still needed as a means of resolving national tasks, namely, the promotion of national rejuvenation and the consolidation of sovereignty and economic independence. At the same time, the national democracy may be used for the country's advance towards socialism by holding up capitalist development, accelerating the numerical growth of the working class and enhancing its role in society, pushing forward the people's political education and drawing them into the struggle for the transition to socialism.
Also unique is the position enjoyed in the world by the countries following the non-capitalist road. Politically they have broken with the world capitalist system and occupied an independent stand, while on basic issues of international politics they side with the world socialist system. Economically, however, they still remain in the world capitalist market, although they occupy a special position in it. The governments of these countries feel that at present it is inexpedient to rupture the long-standing economic ties with the capitalist states, that it is necessary to put an end only to coercive economic relations and to support and develop the ties 357 which are useful for the rejuvenation of the national economy and do not injure co-operation with countries belonging to the world socialist community.
All the successes achieved by the countries following the non-capitalist road are due mainly to the revolutionary activity of the people. On the other hand, the existence of the world socialist system enabled them to take the non-- capitalist road and achieve their first major successes. Economic and cultural co-operation with the socialist states and their experience help the young countries, as Lenin foresaw, to ``pass to the use of machinery, to the lightening of labour, to democracy, to socialism''.^^*^^
From the aforesaid it follows that the experience now accumulated by the national liberation revolutions is a substantial contribution to the Leninist proposition that formerlv backward peoples can pass to socialism through non-capitalist development. In particular, this concerns the conclusion drawn by the Communist Parties in recent years that the transition to the non-capitalist road can also be effected by the former colonial and semi-colonial countries, where capitalism has already been established but has not reached the monopoly stage of development. Although the term ``non-capitalist road of development" is now generally accepted, for such countries it is to some extent conditional because it does not exactly convey the content of the new revolutionary phase of their development.
The problem of the non-capitalist development of Asian, African and Latin American peoples who have shaken off capitalist and colonial oppression mirrors not only the present but also the future of the national liberation movement. Non-capitalist development is becoming increasingly popular and in the immediate future it will evidently be the basic way of transition to socialism by the peoples of the former colonial empire of monopoly capital.
Despite the complexity of the national liberation movement, the prerequisites for its inevitable triumph are on hand.
``The way to carry out the tasks of national development and social progress and effectively rebuff neo-colonialist intrigues,'' it is stated in the Main Document of the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 67.
358 ``is to raise the activity of the people, enhance the role of the proletariat and the peasants, rally working youth, students, intellectuals, urban middle strata and democratic army circles---all patriotic and progressive forces. It is this kind of unity the Communist and Workers' Parties are calling for.''^^*^^In drawing up its principal documents, the 1969 Meeting acted largely on the basis of the theoretical and practical experience of the CPSU. The significance of this experience was repeatedly underscored in the speeches of the Meeting's participants and in the decisions adopted by it.
The Meeting highly assessed the CPSU's contribution towards charting the strategy and tactics of the modern national liberation movement and put on record its full agreement with the CPSU's evaluation of this movement's place and role in the world revolutionary process and with its conclusion that the resistance of the peoples of the liberated countries to neo-colonialist policies is creating an important front of the anti-imperialist struggle and that heading this front are the peoples that have adopted a socialist orientation. The Meeting unanimously endorsed the CPSU's analysis of the alignment of class forces in the modern national liberation movement and of the new, favourable conditions facilitating the unity and gradual convergence of the revolutionary democrats and the expounders of scientific socialism, and highly appraised the CPSU's experience of cooperation with the national-democratic parties.
For the CPSU the fact that the teaching of Lenin, its founder and leader, has become the symbol of progress and the future of all fighters for national and social emancipation is the highest evaluation of its contribution to the development of the national liberation movement. In a message of reply to greetings from L. I. Brezhnev, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, the participants in the International Symposium ``Leninist Teaching on National Liberation Revolutions and the Modern Stage of Social Progress in the Developing Countries'', held in October 1969 to mark the centenary of the birth of Lenin, wrote on behalf of the peoples of 50 countries that the policy and practical work of the Soviet state are testimony ``of the _-_-_
~^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 29.
359 unflagging attention shown by the Party of Lenin to problems of vital significance for the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America and of its consistent implementation of the Leninist principles of anti-imperialist solidarity with and support for the just struggle being waged by the oppressed peoples for national liberation and social progress''.^^*^^ _-_-_~^^*^^ Pravda, October 4, 1969,
[360] __ALPHA_LVL1__ SCIENTIFICE. A. Arab-Ogly
__NOTE__ Author(s) is (are) above LVL in original.Our age is witnessing far-reaching socio-economic reforms and political changes. It may be described as the most revolutionary century in human history. The liberation revolution whose purpose is to establish social justice, the scientific and technological revolution and the accompanying colossal increase of man's power over Nature, the demographic revolution which is leading to the doubling (with the future prospect of trebling) of the human life span, and the numerous revolutionary changes taking place in various spheres of human activity are not isolated processes that have simply coincided in time. They are inter-dependent and inter-supplementing aspects of the world social revolution, whose basic content is mankind's transition to a higher socio-economic system. Communism is as incompatible with the exploitation of man by man, with oppression of other peoples and with all kinds of social and national inequality as it is inconceivable without an abundance of material and cultural blessings, without the possibility of a full-blooded life from birth to old age for each and every person.
With every passing year it is becoming more and more apparent that the new discoveries in science and their technological application lead to irreversible changes and farreaching socio-economic reforms in all spheres, beginning with production and ending with philosophy and the everyday life of people. In the capitalist West this revolutionary influence of science and technology on the life of society is accompanied by the aggravation of economic contradictions and by collisions of social interests. In antagonistic society, 361 the scientific and technological revolution with all its economic and social effects least of all resembles a harmonious and painless process. It brings economic contradictions into sharp relief, breaks traditional social relations and views and places capitalist society before dilemmas which it cannot resolve.
The scientific and technological revolution is part and parcel of the world liberation social revolution of this century, a revolution which ends with the whole of working mankind's transition to the highest socio-economic system, to communism. The attempts being made by many bourgeois sociologists to counterpose the scientific and technological revolution to the socialist revolution, let alone to supplant the political and social revolution by the technological revolution, are theoretically untenable. Although science and technology play an immense role in society's development, they are by no means independent and all-powerful factors of social progress despite their relative independence. The hopes of the agents of state-monopoly capitalism to settle the economic contradictions and social conflicts of antagonistic society with the aid of scientific and technological progress are ridiculously naive. Although in the struggle between the two systems modern imperialism is seeking to adapt itself to the requirements of the scientific and technological revolution, it is unable, as the Main Document of the 1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties points out, even by acquiring some new features to curb the spontaneous forces of the capitalist market and avert economic upheavals and social cataclysms. ``The scientific and technological revolution offers mankind unprecedented possibilities to remake Nature, to produce immense material wealth and to multiply man's creative capabilities. These possibilities should serve the general welfare, but capitalism is using the scientific and technological revolution to increase its profits and intensify the exploitation of the working people.''^^*^^ The scientific and technological revolution does not alleviate but, on the contrary, exacerbates and aggravates the objective contradictions of the capitalist mode of production; it not only reproduces traditional social antagonisms on a larger scale than before and makes them more acute but adds _-_-_
~^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 19,
362 new ones to them. ``This applies, in particular, to the contradiction between the unlimited possibilities opened up by the scientific and technological revolution and the roadblocks raised by capitalism to their utilisation for the benefit of society as a whole. Capitalism squanders national wealth, allocating for war purposes a great proportion of scientific discoveries and immense material resources. This is the contradiction between the social character of present-day production and the state-monopoly nature of its regulation. This is not only the growth of the contradiction between capital and labour, but also the deepening of the antagonism between the interests of the overwhelming majority of the nation and those of the financial oligarchy.''^^*^^ The scientific and technological revolution has heightened the instability of the entire world capitalist system, which is no longer able to secure even temporary stabilisation.The different, frequently antipodal effects of this revolution under capitalism and socialism are becoming clearcut even today, at its initial stage. Although many of the social problems which it poses mankind are analogous in a number of aspects---intensification of production, intellectualisation of society, utilisation of leisure time, and so forth ---the real possibilities of resolving them are very different under socialism and capitalism. That is what makes the analysis and assessment of the scientific and technological revolution from the standpoint of different classes and philosophies the object of a sharp ideological struggle, of a collision between different concepts of social development and prospects for the future.
Mankind's future is, naturally, not predetermined by the scientific and technological revolution alone, independently of the social system and revolutionary social movements. However, it would be naive to believe that in individual countries and on a global scale the transition to communism can be effected outside the scientific and technological revolution. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Marxists-Leninists throughout the world emphatically reject the Left-opportunist, voluntaristic arguments that communism can be attained without using the achievements of modern science and technology, and also the Right-- opportunist, reformist views, according to which the scientific and _-_-_
~^^*^^ International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, Moscow 1969, p. 19.
363 technological revolution is automatically accompanied by far-reaching social changes leading to socialism and communism.The scientific and technological revolution is a vital condition for communist construction, for the building of the material and technical basis of communism. Without this revolution it is impossible to attain an abundance of material and cultural blessings in society or finally erase the essential distinctions between town and countryside, between physical and mental labour, and promote the all-round development of the individual. That is why the social problems of the scientific and technological revolution acquire so much importance in the Soviet Union in the course of the gradual transition to communism.
In its practical and theoretical work the Communist Party of the Soviet Union devotes increasing attention to the development of science and the socio-economic effects of the scientific and technological revolution. In the section of the Programme of the CPSU formulating the basic laws of the transition to communism it is stated: ``The Party will do everything to enhance the role of science in the building of communist society; it will encourage research to discover new possibilities for the development of the productive forces, and the rapid and extensive application of the latest scientific and technical achievements; a decisive advancement in experimental work, including research directly at enterprises, and the efficient organisation of scientific and technical information and of the whole system of studying and disseminating progressive Soviet and foreign methods. Science will itserf in full measure become a direct productive force.''^^*^^
The problems of the scientific and technological revolution were profoundly analysed at the Twenty-Second and Twenty-Third congresses of the CPSU and in many Party decisions and documents over recent years. In the report of the CC CPSU to the Twenty-Third Congress it was stressed that the ``unprecedentedly rapid scientific development is the most striking feature of our time. Science is exercising an ever-mounting influence on all aspects of material and cultural life''.^^**^^ The significance of the modern scientific and _-_-_
~^^*^^ The Road to Communism, pp. 520--21.
~^^**^^ 23rd Congress of the CPSU, pp. 106--07,
364 technological revolution was dealt with in the Theses of the CC CPSU on the 50th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, the decision of the CC CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR on measures to boost the efficiency of scientific organisations and secure the accelerated introduction of scientific and technological achievements in the national economy (October 1968), the speech made by L. I. Brezhnev in Minsk in December 1968, and his speech at the International Meeting in Moscow in June 1969, in which he noted that the scientific and technological revolution has become one of the main sectors of the historic competition between capitalism and socialism.At present the study of the course and prospects of the scientific and technological revolution occupies a prominent place in the preparations for the Twenty-Fourth Congress of the CPSU, in the compilation of the next five-year plan and in long-term socio-economic forecasts. Socialism is history's first social system that rests on scientific principles of organisation and administration, on conscious, planned development. This is the system that gives scope for scientific and technological progress for the benefit of all the members of society.
In the Marxist-Leninist science of society, the study of the laws governing scientific and technological progress and its social effects has a long tradition. Marx and Engels devoted considerable attention to the role played by science and technology in social development and profoundly generalised the nature and impact of the preceding technological upheaval---the industrial revolution, which led to the establish.ment of the capitalist mode of production. They closely followed the development of science and technology and noted their revolutionising influence on all aspects of social activity. In his reminiscences Wilhelm Liebknecht relates an interesting episode during a meeting with Marx and Engels, when Marx spoke enthusiastically of the inseparable link between the technological revolution and socialism.^^*^^
This tradition was continued by Lenin, who early in the 20th century perspicaciously foresaw that the revolution in the natural sciences would evolve into a new technological revolution, and called for an alliance between science and socialism. Emphasising that labour productivity is the _-_-_
~^^*^^ Reminiscences of Marx and Engels, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1956, p. 91.
365 central criterion of the competition between the two social systems, Lenin theoretically substantiated the historic advantages of socialism in the utilisation of science and technology. The scientific and technological revolution bears out Lenin's words that ``socialism alone will liberate science from its bourgeois fetters, from its enslavement to capital, from its slavery to the interests of dirty capitalist greed''.^^*^^Drawing upon the theoretical heritage of Marx, Engels and Lenin, and summing up the experience of scientific, technological and social progress and of socialist construction and the gradual transition to communism in the USSR, Soviet scientists are studying the character of the contemporary technological upheaval and its prospects. In recent years they have written a series of monographs devoted to the scientific and technological revolution and its social effects, and to the role played by science in promoting social progress. International and ail-Union conferences have been held on these themes in the USSR. Extensive research into these problems is conducted at scientific institutions and higher schools. In the Soviet Union the social problems of the scientific and technological revolution are studied in cooperation with scientists of socialist countries and Marxists throughout the world.
__*_*_*__Having entered the life of the modern generation, the 20th-century scientific and technological revolution poses mankind with the extremely acute problem of the social effects of the social activity of people. For its long-term effects, it is in many ways similar to preceding technological revolutions, but at the same time it has features of its own. These features spring chiefly from the objective factors of present-day social progress, from man's immeasurably increased power over Nature and over himself, and from the fact that the whole of mankind has been drawn into a single world process of revolutionary social transformations.
Under these conditions exceptional importance for the whole of social activity and, primarily, for policy is acquired by social prevision and forecasting, i.e., an approach to _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 411.
366 contemporary social problems not only from the standpoint of the past but also from the standpoint of the future. This is exactly what Lenin called upon Marxists to do.^^*^^Like the preceding revolutions in the technology of production, the present scientific and technological revolution is accompanied by a new social division of labour, far-- reaching changes in the branch and professional structure of society, a swift growth of labour productivity and profound changes in the way of life, social values and behaviour motives.
The impact of this revolution on social production is by no means confined to the objective aspect of the productive forces: the introduction of new types of equipment, the emergence of a new social division of labour, the scientific organisation of production, and so forth. While remaking the technological structure of production, this revolution inevitably leads to changes in the subjective aspect of the productive forces. The new machinery presupposes a different, higher qualification of those who handle it, and also different inducements to labour.
In the same way that capitalism, especially after the industrial revolution, was unable to develop on the basis of extra-economical compulsion of labour, socially useful activity, including production, cannot become efficient in the modern epoch if it rests solely on economic compulsion, on material remuneration for work. The social prestige of professions, inner satisfaction, concurrence of personal aspirations with the interests of the collective and of society as a whole, the possibility of self-expression and so on are beginning to play an increasing role as incentives to work not only in new spheres of socially-useful activity such as science, education and various kinds of social services but also in traditional branches of material production. These moral incentives make it possible to achieve the highest level of labour productivity where material incentives are gradually being exhausted. In its turn this is accompanied by a radical break with the traditional philosophy of life, with the ideas of the sense and aims of life. In the process of the scientific and technological revolution mercantile aims and utilitarianism, which had justified themselves for a long time in capitalist society as the line of conduct by a considerable section _-_-_
~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 75.
367 of the population, are gradually losing their force of attraction. At the same time, in antagonistic society the new incentives of a moral order come into conflict with the private capitalist principles of commodity production and can become inducements for socially useful work only for a narrow circle of privileged people.Capitalism seeks, by setting up a so-called mass consumers' society, to propagate consumer psychology and goes to all lengths to stimulate not only real but also imaginary requirements in commodities. In other words, in its quest for a way out of the objective social contradiction it is striving not so much to supplement material incentives for work with moral inducements as to intensify economic compulsion with the aid of advertisement, fashion and philistine competition in the possession of things.
However, the capitalist system's possibilities in this direction are objectively limited. That is why the ruling classes in the West are resorting more and more to such a method of social influence on the masses as controlling their thinking with the help of a large arsenal of psychological means. The social purpose of this manipulation is to suggest gradually, without arousing conscious resistance, a definite line of behaviour, prejudices and reflexes which would make the masses an obedient victim of the ruling class. It must be admitted that in the cinema, radio, the periodical press and, in particular, television state-monopoly capitalism indeed has a powerful technical and social means of influencing the masses. However, inasmuch as this sort of psychological influence clashes with the objective conditions of the life and work of the masses it cannot, in the long run, serve as the panacea for the social and ideological crisis. On the historical level mind manipulation and the ``consumers' society" are only palliatives, a kind of patent remedy that temporarily alleviates pain symptoms but does not deliver society from the fatal disease.
Social values and inducements for social activity in conformity with the requirements of the scientific and technological revolution take shape only under socialism. While the scientific and technological revolution creates the objective, material conditions for society's transition to communism, socialism potentially contains in itself the social principles of relations between people that coincide with the revolution's long-term economic and social effects.
368In many respects not only economic development but also mankind's social progress are determined by the consistent division of labour. Throughout history this division took place horizontally, so to speak, through the separation of the direct process of manufacturing a product into a series of parallel or consecutive operations, and also vertically, through the separation of individual stages of social production into relatively independent spheres of economic activity. In the first case, the production process remained a sphere of joint labour, while in the second case it acquired the nature of indirect participation in the common work. In both cases, however, as a result of the social division of labour, the aggregate productivity of labour rose substantially thanks to specialisation and co-operation, and also to the movement of part of the labour force into spheres of activity where the economic efficacy of labour is on the whole higher.
In the course of the scientific and technological revolution science and education and also a number of social services form, as it were, a new storey in the economic edifice of civilisation---the third storey, if the appropriation and multiplication of natural wealth in agriculture is to be regarded as the first, and the industrial processing of this wealth as the second. The point is not that these forms of social activity were formerly non-existent but that the production, acquisition and application of knowledge in the process of the scientific and technological revolution have become a vital, preliminary condition of modern social production; socially useful activity in this sphere becomes necessary socially and highly effective economically; it contributes a growing share to the value of the aggregate social product and by virtue of this acquires the nature of productive labour.
Marx and Engels noted that the concept of labour productivity is arbitrary, that its content changes from one epoch to another, from one social system to another. ``Only bourgeois narrow-mindedness,'' Marx emphasised, ``which regards the capitalist forms of production as absolute forms ---hence as eternal, natural forms of production---can confuse the question of what is productive labour from the standpoint of capital with the question of what labour is productive in general, or what is productive labour in general.''^^*^^
_-_-_~^^*^^ Karl Marx, Theories of Surplus-Value, Part I, Moscow, p. 393.
__PRINTERS_P_369_COMMENT__ 24---2635 369The divergence in assessing various activity as being socially useful, economically effective and productive (or the reverse) is due not only to a different initial point of view, say, feudal, capitalist or working-class, but also to the development level of the given society's productive forces. In the modern epoch and in the light of the scientific and technological revolution to adopt the view that only physical labour, or work in industry, or work producing material values is productive is tantamount to saying that after the industrial revolution only labour in agriculture was productive, i.e., to be a physiocrat in the 19th and 20th centuries. Furthermore, the capitalist's view of productive labour also clashes with the new economic reality engendered by the scientific and technological revolution.
In Theories of Surplus-Value Marx gives numerous examples of contradictions between common sense and the capitalist criterion in assessing one kind of concrete labour or another as being productive. In capitalist society, the work of the teacher or the artist is considered productive not in itself but only depending on whether surplus value can be obtained from it. What was in those days an economic paradox and a logical absurdity has now become a deep-going economic contradiction and a flagrant social absurdity; in the process of the scientific and technological revolution socially useful work in science, education and public health is growing highly effective economically; at the same time it is, on the whole, unproductive and unprofitable as a sphere of private capital investment.
There is a profound and historically irremovable contradiction between the capitalist mode of production and science as a sphere of socially useful activity. Called into being by the scientific and technological revolution the new productive forces require for their full development other economic and social principles than those which were formed on the basis of the industrial revolution in capitalist society. This is due to the fact that the production of socially useful knowledge in many ways differs essentially from the production of manufactured commodities and most services designated ultimately for individual consumption through acquisition directly in the market, in other words, they carry with them the right of exclusive use. In the course of the scientific and technological revolution it becomes increasingly evident that the efficacy of investment in science and the 370 realisation of its products can no longer be successfully regulated by the mechanism of private capitalist commodity production.
The role of science as a universal productive force is determined chiefly by the level of knowledge attained by mankind, knowledge which in every specific case of utilisation and useful application comes forward, as Marx put it, as a kind of ``gratuitous force''. This level, which is the accumulated result of preceding scientific development, depends relatively little on the current activity of individual scientists or individual laboratories that contribute to it. On the contrary, the results of their activity are determined chiefly by this level. However great may be the economic efficacy of capital investments in science from the standpoint of society as a whole, this efficacy does not fit into the narrow context of investment profitability from the capitalist's standpoint. No monopoly corporation, whatever its financial resources, is able to exert any influence on the general level of knowledge in the given epoch. Moreover, any effort in this direction would be as futile as an attempt to raise the ocean level or purify the air in some one city. Although the situation in this context is different in the various fields of knowledge, the exploitation of scientific achievements by individual corporations nonetheless rests mainly on the utilisation of existing knowledge and the technological application of this knowledge.
The economic realisation of scientific discoveries and the private appropriation of the results cannot be fitted into market relations. For all its resourcefulness and commercial spirit business has not invented a means whereby it would be possible to sell a theorem or a physical law in one copy and preserve the market price of subsequent copies. As soon as the fact of a discovery becomes known, the newly acquired knowledge ceases to be a direct commodity and in one way or another becomes general property. Knowledge may be turned into private property only indirectly and for a limited time in the form of patents for its technological application. The classification of research, practised by the corporations, only yields a temporary advantage by delaying the development of science as a whole and thereby boomerangs against the corporations' own long-term interests.
During the past decade there has been a kind of scientific and technological boom in the capitalist West, particularly __PRINTERS_P_371_COMMENT__ 24* 371 in the United States of America. The investments of the leading monopoly corporations in research and technological development are growing swiftly from year to year, and for their volume they have exceeded the capital investments in new equipment. In science capitalist enterprise has discovered for itself a new and inexhaustible gold vein, more tempting than a thousand Klondikes or all the oil-rich regions of the world. In the sphere of research long-term processes leading to the piling up and aggravation of contradictions between science and private capital lie behind the facade of commercial florescence. The state and practically the whole of society are compelled to shoulder a steadily growing portion of the capital investments in science. In the USA the expenditures on research and technological development have increased fourfold since 1954. Two-thirds of these expenditures .are borne by the state, and if we consider the various tax exemptions enjoyed by the corporations this share will evidently be found to be higher. With the help of the state the corporations shift onto society as a whole not only practically all the expense of promoting fundamental research but also the greater part of the burden of expenditures on research that does not promise them direct and quick benefits, for instance, the practical utilisation of atomic and thermonuclear energy, space exploration, and so forth. Even in the development of a supersonic passenger aircraft, which holds out for the air companies the promise of huge profits, the state bears all (as in France) or 90 per cent of the expenditures (as in the USA). In other words, the symbiosis of private enterprise with science is evolving into economic and social parasitism: the exploitation by business of the goldfields of science signifies private appropriation of the wealth created at the expense of society as a whole.
In the long-term prospect, the striving to preserve the principles of private capitalist enterprise in scientific activity is in many ways reminiscent of the attempts to develop industry in the 18th century on the basis of feudal methods of exploitation.
According to the well-known American economist Professor Robert L. Heilbroner of the New School of Social Studies, New York, the social effects of science's revolutionising impact on capitalist society are comparable with the decomposing influence of commodity production and money relations on feudalism. In the conflict between the scientific 372 and technological revolution, he writes in his book The Limits of American Capitalism, two elements come to the fore. These are spontaneous self-regulation and the conscious development of social interests and the privileges of the minority. The outcome of this conflict, he says, has been predetermined by history. ``What is certain is only one thing. It is the profound incompatibility between the new idea of the active use of science within society and the idea of capitalism as a social system. ... In the end capitalism is weighed in the scale of science and found wanting, not alone as a system but as a philosophy.''^^*^^
The incompatibility of the scientific and technological revolution with capitalism as a socio-economic system is growing increasingly more pronounced also in the sphere of education, which is becoming one of the leading forms of socially useful activity. Objective reassessments of economic and social values manifest themselves in our age, perhaps more clearly in this sphere than in any other.
Until the 20th century no society could, in effect, give its members more than an elementary education. For economic considerations it could afford to maintain only a handful of highly educated people, for in the course of these many centuries to be educated meant to be unproductive. As a rule, in antagonistic society higher education was a synonym of luxury and affiliation to the ruling class. The scientific and technological revolution accomplished an upheaval in the economic and social functions of education: now, on the contrary, to remain uneducated is tantamount to being unproductive and, in many cases, redundant for production. The mastering of knowledge or, in other words, the application of science is becoming a factor of social production as important as the technological utilisation of science.
In both socialist and capitalist society modern social production requires a growing number of highly-trained specialists with a level of knowledge conforming to the achievements of science and technology. With the growing significance of mental work as compared with physical labour, the higher qualifications of the workers, and not so much their number, as well as the principle of the ``maximum education for the maximum number of people" become not only a demand of social justice but a condition for the _-_-_
~^^*^^ Robert L. Heilbroner, The Limits of American Capitalism, New York, 1966, pp. 132--33.
373 extended reproduction of society's main productive force---the working man.The existence of a highly-trained labour force with adequate qualifications and in adequate numbers is the basic condition of modern production.
But the need to give good education to the entire population presupposes colossal outlays of socially useful labour in the course of a long period of time: it takes an average of 15--20 years of formal education at school and at the university to train a highly skilled specialist. In the long run the ``investments in man'', whether in the form of education, health services and even upbringing from childhood, including provision with food, clothes and housing, are more than repaid in the course of his subsequent productive activity. But from the standpoint of the capitalist entrepreneur, this is, as a whole, a totally unprofitable sphere of capital investment: first, because it is repaid not very soon (experts calculate that on the average a person compensates for the money spent on him only by the time he reaches the age of 30--35); second, because the product of the expenditures---the highly trained specialist---may be just as easily acquired by other, rival firms in the labour market at a price below this product's cost. At best, the largest corporations are prepared to invest money in a ``semi-finished product'', i.e., a more or less educated worker who can be expected to yield results quickly. All other expenses for the reproduction of highlytrained manpower are devolved by private capital either on the family or, to an increasing extent, on the state, or, lastly, even on other countries, from where specialists are enticed. This latter phenomenon, currently practised on a large scale, is known as the brain drain.
In the present epoch, capital investments in man, as in science, are thus a universal and vital condition of social production as a whole. But, in the main, these investments do not come from private capitalist enterprise. The economic efficacy of social activity in this sphere and capitalist profitability are diverging more and more. The interests of society and capital come into collision, which grows into a social conflict because most of the cost of creating social wealth is shifted, with the help of the state, to the shoulders of the population while the profits from its realisation in the process of commodity production are appropriated privately, chiefly by monopoly capital.
374As long as state expenditures on research and technological development and on education and the health services are kept to within 10--20 per cent of the national income, this sort of redistribution of social wealth in favour of the monopoly corporations may be somehow justified in the eyes of public opinion through ideological dodges accentuating some other, imaginary advantages of the capitalist system. However, these expenditures are growing rapidly, and with the shift of manpower into the ``tertiary sphere" in the process of the new social division of labour they will continue to grow. In order to avert economic and social stagnation, the state will have to go on withdrawing from the sphere of private enterprise those forms of socially useful work to which the principles of commodity production are inapplicable. The colossal growth of the role played by the state in economic and social activity in the capitalist West after the Second World War is largely the result of the scientific and technological revolution. This is not a transient but a constantly operating factor. Ultimately, after several decades, even if private capitalist commodity production is preserved in industry its real share of the aggregate social product will fall to 10--15 per cent. Under these conditions, the preservation of private ownership and the principle of capitalist enterprise in industry (to say nothing of other spheres of social production) will be as bizarre to society as the preservation of feudal rent and estate privileges after the industrial revolution.
Even if the capitalist system prolongs its existence to that time despite its insoluble inner contradictions (a very doubtful prospect) and even if it invents an economic mechanism that would turn the entire product of the ``tertiary sphere" into a commodity (which in its direct form cannot be achieved), its hours would be numbered as a result of this new social division of labour. No capitalist would agree to having his entire product, including surplus value, alienated in the form of natural rent to the feudal landowner on the grounds that the enterprise is situated on land belonging to the latter. Similarly, society will not allow the wealth created by it in new spheres of activity to be sold in the market in the form of an industrial product and let a handful of proprietors appropriate the entire surplus product in the form of private capitalist profit. In the eyes of society private ownership of the means of production and control packets 375 of shares will have as much justification and legal force as did the feudal deeds awarded by the French kings and the estate privileges in developed industrial society. The privileges of the capitalists created by private ownership will inevitably be abolished in the course of the scientific and technological revolution, and their chances of holding their ground in the new society are even smaller than were the chances of the British lords to preserve the bread tax at the beginning of the 19th century.
In the capitalist West the view has become widespread in recent years that technological progress is reducing the role played by man, ousting him from social production, turning him more and more from a producer into a consumer of material and cultural values and, in the long run, dooming him to dependence on machines in a ``civilisation of leisure''. This viewpoint is upheld by the overwhelming majority of representatives of conservative and liberalreformist circles. Depending on their social position its propounders give a directly opposite interpretation of this process and their aim is obviously to stir various emotions. Some tempt public opinion with the ideal of a new ``Antique Greece'', where machines take the place of slaves and bring people abundance and idleness. Others, with similar perseverance, try to intimidate the people with the dreary and allegedly inevitable prospect that most people would be `` redundant'', that in the cybernetic society of the future reservations would have to be established for them in the same way as sanctuaries have been set up for condors and cranes. In the final analysis, both alternatives rest on a tacit recognition of the antagonism between man and technology, and the only thing that distinguishes them is the fate they predict for people who become redundant in production.
However, before judging the chances of these alternatives, we would be justified in first asking the question: Does scientific and technological progress really oust man en masse from the sphere of social production?
Mankind's entire economic history categorically rebels against a surmise of this kind. Indeed, a hundred years ago labour productivity was, in Britain for example, several times below the modern level. Nonetheless, British industry did not experience any acute need for enlisting additional manpower. On the contrary, it hardly ensured employment for 10 million people (instead of the present 24 million), 376 and many tens of thousands of Englishmen, who were unable to find work at home, annually immigrated across the ocean in search of employment. If we go back yet another century (to the mid-18th century) before the industrial revolution, we shall find that only 3,500,000 of the able-bodied population more than covered the manpower requirements of the British economy of those days and many thousands were unemployed. Whatever country we take we shall find in its history the operation of one and the same law: the more primitive the technology of production the fewer people is it able to employ and provide with the means of subsistence in the given territory.
Many Western sociologists and economists, who at present intimidate themselves and others with the spectre of unprecedented unemployment as a result of automation, commit the same mistake that was once made by Simonde de Sismondi. Early in the 19th century many petty-bourgeois ideologists believed that machines would oust people from production, while Sismondi went so far as to declare that the logical culmination of this process would be that in Britain the only subjects of the king would be machines.
History has had a good laugh at prophecies of this kind: in Britain today, thanks to machines, three times more people find employment than in the days of Sismondi.
Bourgeois sociologists and economists usually link the scientific and technological revolution and the growth of labour productivity in modern society chiefly if not exclusively with changes in technology, in the means of labour and so on. In their concepts of technological determinism, man is pushed completely into the background by machines generally and, in particular, by modern computers and other cybernetic devices. According to them man remains more and more in the shade of production and if he is not completely-ousted from it he moves into the background, gradually losing his productive functions. Accordingly, material labour and knowledge, embodied in machinery, overwhelm live labour and knowledge as embodied by man. In other words, the past dominates the present.
The improvement of the implements and means of production throughout the course of history is a good objective criterion for characterising man's increased power over Nature. But it is quite inappropriate to compare the relative role played by man and technology in each given epoch. 377 After all, man himself does not remain immutable in the process of social development: throughout history there has been not only a numerical growth of the population but also a qualitative growth of the people comprising this population, of the producers of material and cultural values.
In the scientific and technological revolution man remains society's principal productive force not only humanistically but also economically. However perfect technology and machines may be, Marx and Lenin noted, they are only the expression of human knowledge, experience and skill. With the development of science and technology, the obsolescence and moral depreciation of past material knowledge proceed much faster than the acquisition of live knowledge. This finds expression in the growing economic significance of intensive factors of production as compared with extensive factors in modern social production. The American economist Fulton E. Denison has estimated that at least twothirds to three-fifths of the total output increment in the USA in the period 1929--55 must be attributed to the higher level of skill, better organisation of production and the application of scientific knowledge, i.e., to intensive factors, and only one-third to one-fifth to extensive factors: growth of employment and of fixed capital. Moreover, in the course of the scientific and technological revolution the share of the former shows a tendency to grow. We therefore fully agree with the French demographer Alfred Sauvy, who writes: ``A close analysis of economic evolution over the past fifteen years shows that the main factor of development and progress is not capital, as was believed for a long time, but the knowledge and ability of people to create wealth.''
The illusion being spread by bourgeois economists and sociologists that man is being ousted from production is largely the result of a non-historical approach to society and of confining their analyses to the sphere of industrial production. However, even in that sphere we observe not the ousting of man from production but a change of his functions in production, his conversion from an agent of production, from an appendage of machines, to controller of production in the broad sense of the word, as Marx had foreseen. Naturally, capitalism cripples and deforms this process, but this deformation should hardly be accepted as an adequate reflection.
The following words by Lenin aptly describe the situation: ``On all sides, at every step one comes across problems 378 which man is quite capable of solving immediately, but capitalism is in the way. It has amassed enormous wealth and has made men the slaves of this wealth. It has solved the most complicated technical problems---and has blocked the application of technical improvements because of the poverty and ignorance of millions of the population, because of the stupid avarice of a handful of millionaires.''^^*^^
``A scientific and technological revolution of a hitherto unprecedented scale is unfolding in the world today,'' L. I. Brezhnev said in his speech on December 28, 1968. ``It is accomplishing a real upheaval in one branch of industry after another, and opening up new prospects for improving production management and labour organisation....
``It may be said without exaggeration that one of the main fronts of the historical competition between the two systems lies in the field of scientific and technological progress. For our Party this makes the further intensive development of science and technology and the broad application of the latest scientific and technological achievements in production not only the central economic but also an important political task. One can say frankly that at the present stage questions of scientific and technological progress acquire decisive significance.''^^**^^
It is becoming increasingly evident that having started in the old, antagonistic society, the scientific and technological revolution can no longer fit into the Procrustean bed of the old society and inevitably leads to economic and social changes that go beyond the limits of capitalism.
As a socio-economic system capitalism rests on antagonistic relations and spontaneous development. It is unable to foresee opportunely the social consequences and side-effects of the scientific and technological revolution, much less place these consequences under society's control. Therefore, its replacement by the communist system is now dictated not only by the requirements of social justice but also by the objective course of mankind's socio-historical progress.
_-_-_~^^*^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 389.
~^^**^^ Pravda, December 29, 1968.
[379] __ALPHA_LVL0__ The End. [END]Request to Readers
Progress Publishers would be glad to have your opinion of this book, its translation and design and any suggestions you may have for future publications.
Please send your comments to 21, Zubovsky Boulevard, Moscow, USSR.
[380]PROGRESS PUBLISHERS RECENTLY PUT OUT IN ENGLISH:
V. I. Lenin---the Great Theoretician (Collection of articles edited by M. Iskrov)
The contributors, all of whom are prominent Soviet scientists and publicists, describe the Leninist stage in the development of dialectical and historical materialism, and show the exceptional versatility and theoretical profundity of Lenin's works.
The collection gives an account of Lenin's contribution to the development of Marxist philosophy, to the political economy of capitalism and socialism and the Marxist theory of socialist revolution, to the teaching about the objective laws governing the construction of the communist formation, about the dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist state, and the strategy and tactics of the international communist and working-class movement, to the promotion of the ideas of proletarian internationalism, etc. The collection once again shows that the foundation on which Leninism had appeared and matured was not only the experience of the revolutionary movement in Russia but also the experience of the world working-class movement and that, consequently, it is a great international teaching.
Cloth 13X20 cm 392 pp.
[381]A Short History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
Written by Soviet historians under the editorship of Academician Ponomaryov this book gives a brief description of the history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from its inception to the present time.
It pays most attention to Party activity during the Great October Socialist Revolution and the construction of socialism and communism in the USSR, its role in the economic and cultural development of the Soviet state, in the growth of people's well-being and strengthening the defence potential of the USSR, defence of its socialist gains, in the consolidation of the unity of the international communist and working-class movement.
Written in a clear and simple language, the book is intended for the mass reader.
Cloth 13 X 20 cm 392 pp. Illustrated.
[382]PRONIN I., STEPICHEV M. Leninist Standards of Party Life
(On the forms and methods of Party activities, Party bodies and members)
The authors discuss the principles and norms of Party life worked out by V. I. Lenin and how they influence the life and activity of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and show how they determine the forms of Party organisation, its internal activity and methods of work.
The book characterises the CPSU as a party of a new type which plays a steadily increasing role in the period of communist construction. The reader will be able to familiarise himself with the Party Rules which set forth the rights and duties of a Communist.
In their work the authors define the significance of democratic centralism as the guiding principle in the organisational structure of the Party---collectivity from the bottom to the top, combination of collective leadership with individual responsibility. The chapter ``Selection of Personnel and Supervision" discusses methods of placing and educating personnel. One section of the book deals with the Party's links with the people and its role in the country's mass organisations.
Paper 13X20 cm 148 pp.
[383] __DUST_JACKET__This book consists of a series of articles on the creative development of Marxist-Leninist theory in the documents and practical activity of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The authors discuss the most important aspects of the three components of Marxism: philosophy, political economy and scientific communism.
Summing up the immense practical experience of the international workingclass movement and of socialist construction in the USSR and other countries, the CPSU has advanced and enriched the teaching of the socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, shown the basic laws and motive forces governing the development of socialist society, determined the cardinal conditions under which socialism evolves into communism, substantially enlarged on the principles of proletarian internationalism, and theoretically elaborated and provided a practical solution to many other problems of the development of the world revolutionary process.
A collective monograph, this book has been written for students of the history of the CPSU and of MarxistLeninist theory.
[384]